BANCROFT    LIBRARY 


WORKS  BY  THE  SAME  AUTHOR. 

A  HISTORY  OF  THE  INQUISITION  OF  SPAIN.  In  four 
volumes,  octavo.  (Now  Complete.) 

A  HISTORY  OF  THE  INQUISITION  OF  THE  MIDDLE  AGES. 
In  three  volumes,  octavo. 

A  HISTORY  OF  AURICULAR  CONFESSION  AND  INDUL- 
GENCES IN  THE  LATIN  CHURCH.  In  three  volumes, 
octavo. 

HISTORY  OF  SACERDOTAL  CELIBACY  IN  THE  CHRIS- 
TIAN CHURCH.  Third  edition.  In  two  volumes,  octavo. 
(Now  Ready.) 

A  FORMULARY  OF  THE  PAPAL  PENITENTIARY  IN  THE 
THIRTEENTH  CENTURY.  One  volume,  octavo.  (Out  of 
print.) 

SUPERSTITION  AND  FORCE.  Essays  on  The  Wager  of  Law, 
The  Wager  of  Battle,  The  Ordeal,  Torture.  Fourth  edition, 
revised.  In  one  volume,  12mo. 

STUDIES  IN  CHURCH  HISTORY.  The  Rise  of  the  Temporal 
Power,  Benefit  of  Clergy,  Excommunication,  The  Early  Church 
and  Slavery.  Second  edition.  In  one  volume,  12mo. 

CHAPTERS  FROM  THE  RELIGIOUS  HISTORY  OF  SPAIN, 
CONNECTED  WITH  THE  INQUISITION.  Censorship  of 
the  Press,  Mystics  and  Illuminati,  Endemoniadas,  El  Santo 
Nifio  de  la  Guardia,  Brianda  de  Bardaxl.  In  one  volume,  12mo. 

THE  MORISCOS  OF  SPAIN,  THEIR  CONVERSION  AND 
EXPULSION.  In  one  volume,  12mo. 


THE 


INQUISITION 


SPANISH  DEPENDENCIES 


SICILY— NAPLES— SARDINIA— MILAN—THE  CANARIES— 
MEXICO— PERU— NEW  GRANADA 


BY 

HENRY  CHARLES  LEA,  LL.D.,  S.T.D. 


View 
THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

LONDON:  MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  LTD. 

1922 

Att  rights  reserved 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  America. 


!(.      .* 


COPYRIGHT,  1908 
BY  THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 


Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Published  January,  1908     /  •  * 


Library 


PREFACE. 


THE  scope  of  my  History  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition  precluded  a 
detailed  investigation  into  the  careers  of  individual  tribunals.  Such 
an  investigation,  however,  is  not  without  interest,  especially  with 
respect  to  the  outlying  ones,  which  were  subjected  to  varying  influ- 
ences and  reacted  in  varying  ways  on  the  peoples  among  whom  they 
were  established.  Moreover,  in  some  cases,  this  affords  us  an  inside 
view  of  inquisitorial  life,  of  the  characters  of  those  to  whom  were  con- 
fided the  awful  irresponsible  powers  of  the  Holy  Office  and  of  the  abuse 
of  those  powers  by  officials  whom  distance  removed  from  the  imme- 
diate supervision  of  the  central  authority,  suggesting  a  capacity  for 
evil  even  greater  than  that  manifested  in  the  Peninsula. 

This  is  especially  the  case  with  the  tribunals  of  the  American 
Colonies,  of  which,  thanks  to  the  unwearied  researches  of  Don  Jose 
Toribio  Medina,  of  Santiago  de  Chile,  a  fairly  complete  and  minute 
account  can  be  given,  based  on  the  confidential  correspondence  of 
the  local  officials  with  the  Supreme  Council  and  the  reports  of  the 
visitadores  or  inspectors,  who  were  occasionally  sent  in  the  vain  expec- 
tation of  reducing  them  to  order.  While  thus  in  the  colonial  tribunals 
we  see  the  Inquisition  at  its  worst,  as  a  portion  of  the  governmental 
system,  we  can  realize  how  potent  was  its  influence  in  contributing 
to  the  failure  of  Spanish  colonial  policy,  by  preventing  orderly  and 
settled  administration  and  by  exciting  disaffection  which  the  Council 
of  Indies  more  than  once  warned  the  crown  would  lead  to  the  loss  of 
its  transatlantic  empire.  It  is  perhaps  not  too  much  to  say  that  these 
revelations  moreover  go  far  to  explain  the  influences  which  so  long 
retarded  the  political  and  industrial  development  of  the  emancipated 
colonies,  for  it  was  an  evil  inheritance  weighing  heavily  on  successive 
generations. 

I  have  not  attempted  to  include  the  fateful  career  of  the  Inquisition 
in  the  Netherlands,  for  this  cannot  be  written  until  the  completion  of 

(vii) 


viii  PREFACE 

Professor  Paul  Fredericq's  monumental  "Corpus  Documentorum 
Inquisitionis  hsereticse  pravitatis  Neerlandicae,"  the  earlier  volumes 
of  which  have  thrown  so  much  light  on  the  repression  of  heresy  in  the 
Low  Countries  up  to  the  dawn  of  the  Reformation. 

It  is  scarce  necessary  for  me  to  make  special  acknowledgement  to 
Sefior  Medina  in  all  that  relates  to  the  American  tribunals,  for  this  is 
sufficiently  attested  by  the  constant  reference  to  his  works.  With 
regard  to  Mexico  I  am  under  particular  obligation  to  David  Fergusson 
Esq.  for  the  use  of  collections  made  by  him  during  long  residence  in 
that  Republic  and  also,  to  the  late  General  Don  Vicente  Riva  Palacio 
for  the  communication  of  a  number  of  interesting  documents.  To 
the  late  Doctor  Paz  Soldan  of  Lima  my  thanks  are  also  due  for  copies 
made  in  the  archives  of  Peru  prior  to  their  dispersion  in  1881. 

PHILADELPHIA,  OCTOBER,  1907. 


CONTENTS. 


CHAPTER  I — SICILY. 

PAGE 

The  Old  Inquisition  in  Sicily .  1 

The  Spanish  Inquisition  introduced  in  1487 2 

Expulsion  of  Jews  in  1492 3 

Tardy  Organization  of  the  Tribunal 5 

It  gradually  becomes  efficient 7 

Financial  Mismanagement 9 

Popular  Disaffection 10 

Increasing  Activity 12 

Complaints  of  Sicilian  Parliament 13 

Death  of  King  Ferdinand— Tumult  of  1516 14 

Re-establishment  in  1519 17 

Efforts  to  reform  Abuses 18 

Renewed  Complaints  of  the  Parliament 21 

Charles  V  suspends  the  Temporal  Jurisdiction  in  1535   ....  22 

Dread  of  Protestantism — Jurisdiction  restored  in  1546      ...  24 

Official  Immunity — Case  of  the  Duke  of  Terranova     ....  25 

Renewed  Activity — Popular  Hostility 26 

Enormous  Increase  in  Number  of  Familiars 27 

Abuse  of  official  Immunity 28 

Attempt  at  Reform  hi  the  Concordia  of  1595 31 

Increased  Aggressiveness  of  the  Tribunal 33 

Collisions  with  the  Secular  Authority 34 

Quarrels  with  the  Bishops 35 

Continued  Strife— Concordia  of  1635 37 

Activity  during  the  Seventeenth  Century 38 

The  Inquisition  under  Austrian  Rule — Auto  de  Fe  of  1724 — 

Pragmatic  Sanction  of  1732 40 

Reconquest  of  Sicily  by  Spain  in  1734 — The  Inquisition  placed 
under  the  Holy  See — Its  Exuberance  repressed  by  Carlos 

III 42 

Suppressed  by  Ferdinando  III  in  1782 43 

MALTA. 

A  Dependency  of  the  Sicilian  Tribunal 44 

Charles  V  in  1530  grants  the  Island  to  the  Knights  of  St.  John      .  45 

(ix) 


CONTENTS 


Episcopal  Inquisition  under  Bishop  Cubelles 45 

The  Tribunal  passes  under  Papal  Control 46 


CHAPTER  II — NAPLES. 

The  Old  Inquisition  in  Naples — The  Jews 49 

Refugees  from  Spain 50 

Spanish  Conquest  in  1503 — Capitulation  excludes  the  Spanish 

Inquisition 52 

Julius  II  revives  the  Papal  Inquisition 53 

Ferdinand  proposes  to  introduce  the  Spanish  Inquisition  in  1504  53 

Neapolitan  Organization — the  Piazze  or  Seggi 54 

Activity  of  the  Papal  Inquisition — Its  Subordination  to  the  Royal 

Power 55 

Ferdinand,  in  1509,  arranges  to  introduce  the  Spanish  Inquisition .  56 

Popular  Opposition  becomes  uncontrollable 58 

Ferdinand  abandons  the  Attempt 62 

His  fruitless  efforts  to  stimulate  Persecution 63 

Inertness  of  the  Papal  Inquisition 65 

Banishment  of  Jews  in  1540 66 

Protestantism  in  Naples — Juan  de  Valde"s — Bernardino  Ochino     .  67 
Organization  of  Roman  Inquisition  in  1542 — Charles  V  orders  its 

Introduction  in  Naples ,   1  70 

Tentative  Efforts  create  popular  Excitement 71 

The  Tumult  of  1547 — its  Suppression     .      .      .      .      .,     .:  ..      .  73 

Punishment  of  the  Leaders 76 

Recrudescence  of  Persecution — The  Roman  Inquisition  tacitly 

introduced 78 

The  Calabrian  Waldenses — Their  Extermination 79 

The  Apulian  Waldenses 85 

Intermingling  of  Jurisdictions 86 

Philip  II  promises  the  Via  Ordinaria 87 

The  Roman  Inquisition  under  Cover  of  the  Episcopal       ...  87 
The  Accused  sent  to  Rome  for  Trial  and  Punishment       ...  88 
The  Exequatur  of  the  Viceroy  is  a  Condition  precedent    ...  89 
Gradual  Encroachment — A  Commissioner  of  the  Roman  Inqui- 
sition established  in  Naples 92 

He  assumes  to  be  an  Inquisitor — Rome  in  1628  denies  the  Neces- 
sity of  the  Viceregal  Exequatur — Quarrels  over  it  94 
The  Roman  Inquisition  virtually  established  in  Naples     ...  96 
Popular  dissatisfaction — Demand  for  the  Via  Ordinaria  .     .  ,< .  96 
Commissioner  Piazza  banished  in  1671   .  99 


CONTEXTS  x{ 


PAGE 


Outbreak  in  1691 — Commissioner  Giberti  ejected 99 

Carlos  II  prohibits  the  residence  of  Commissioners — Permanent 

Deputation  to  oppose  the  Inquisition 100 

The  Roman  Inquisition  in  1695  publishes  an  Edict  of  Denun- 
ciation   101 

The  Episcopal  Inquisition  disregards  the  Via  Ordinaria — Strug- 
gles under  the  Austrian  Domination  102 

Accession  of  Charles  of  Spain — A  tto  di  fede  of  1746      ....     104 

Episcopal  Inquisition  suppressed — Archbishop  Spinelli  forced 

to  resign  .  105 

Continued  Vigilance  of  the  Deputati  until  1764 107 


CHAPTER  III — SARDINIA. 

The  Spanish  Inquisition  introduced  in  1492 109 

Conflicts  with  the  Authorities 110 

Productive  Confiscations   .  112 

Decadent  condition  of  the  tribunal 114 

Charles  V  endeavors  to  reanimate  it — Its  chronic  Poverty     .      .  115 

Interference  of  the  Bishops 117 

Multiplication  of  Officials 117 

Quarrels  with  the  Secular  Authorities 118 

The  Inquisition  disappears  under  the  House  of  Savoy      .      .      .  119 


CHAPTER  IV — MILAN. 

The  Old  and  the  reorganized  Roman  Inquisition    .      .      .      .      .  121 

Energy  of  Fra  Michele  Ghislieri  (Pius  V) 122 

Inefficiency  of  the  Inquisition 123 

Cardinal  Borromeo's  persecuting  Zeal 124 

Philip  II  proposes  to  introduce  the  Spanish  Inquisition    .      .      .  125 

Popular  Resistance — General  Opposition  of  Italian  Bishops  .      .  126 

Philip  II  abandons  the  Project 128 

Political  and  Commercial  Questions  affecting  Lombardy — Inter- 
course with  Heretics 129 

Cardinal  Borromeo  stimulates  Persecution 131 

His  Mission  to  Mantua 133 

The  Roman  Inquisition  perfected — Its  Struggle  to  exclude  Swiss 

Heresy    . 135 

It  is  suppressed  by  Maria  Theresa  in  1775  .      .      .      .      .      .      .  137 


xii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  V — THE  GANARIES. 


PAGE 


Importance  of  the  Islands  as  a  Commercial  Centre 139 

Episcopal  Inquisition  by  Bishop  Muros,  in  1499 140 

Tribunal  established  hi  1505 — It  is  dependent  on  Seville  .      .      .  140 

Its  Activity  until  1534 141 

It  becomes  dormant  and  is  suspended 144 

It  is  reorganized  in  1567  and  rendered  independent  of  Seville  .      .  145 

Activity  of  Inquisitor  Diego  Ortiz  de  Funez 147 

Visitation  of  Doctor  Bravo  de  Zayas  in  1570 148 

Visitation  of  Claudio  de  la  Cueva  hi  1590 — Abuses      ....  150 

Prosecution  of  escaped  Negro  and  Moorish  Slaves      ....  152 

Prosecution  of  English  and  Dutch  Sailors 153 

Number  of  Relaxations 155 

Finances — Early  Poverty — Wealth  from  Confiscations      .      .      .  156 

Prosecution  of  Judaizers 158 

Moorish  and  Negro  Slaves — Renegades 159 

Trivial  Cases 161 

Mysticism — Beatas  revelanderas 162 

Solicitation  hi  the  Confessional 163 

Sorcery  and  Superstitions 165 

Foreign  Heretics — Sailors  and  Merchants 167 

Treaties  with  England  in  1604  and  with  Holland  in  1609  .      .  171 

Precarious  Position  of  Foreign  Merchants 173 

Censorship 176 

Examination  of  Houses  of  Foreign  Residents      ....  177 

Irreverent  religious  Objects 178 

Visitas  de  Navios 179 

Quarrels  with  the  Authorities,  secular  and  ecclesiastical   .      .     .  180 

Popular  hostility — Opposition  to  Sanbenitos  in  Churches.      .      .  188 

Suppression  in  1813 189 

Final  Extinction  in  1820   .  190 


CHAPTER  VI — MEXICO. 

Propagation  of  the  Faith  the  Object  of  the  Conquest ....  191 

Organization  of  the  Colonial  Church 192 

Attempts  to  exclude  New  Christians 193 

Episcopal  Inquisition 195 

Establishment  of  a  Tribunal  proposed — Dread  of  Protestantism   .  199 

Inquisitors  sent  out  in  1570 200 

Tribunal  installed,  November  4,  1571 202 


CONTENTS  xiii 

PAGE 

Distance  renders  it  partially  Independent 203 

Commencement  of  Activity — The  first  auto  de  fe,  February  28, 

1574 204 

Autos  of  1575,  1576,  1577,  1578,  1579,  1590,  1596,  and  1601      .  207 

Persecution  of  Judaizers 208 

Indians  not  subject  to  Inquisition 209 

Finances — Temporary  royal  Subvention — The  Tribunal  expected 

to  be  self-supporting 212 

Its  early  Poverty 213 

It  claims  Indian  Repartimientos 215 

It  refuses  to  render  Account  of  its  Receipts 216 

It  obtains  a  Grant  of  Canonries  in  1627 216 

Fruitless  Efforts  to  make  it  account  for  the  Confiscations  .      .  217 
Large  Remittances  made  to  the  Suprema  from  the  Autos  of 

1646,  1648  and  1649 219 

Efforts  to  make  it  forego  and  refund  the  royal  Subvention      .  219 

Misrepresentations  of  the  Confiscations  and  Remittances      .  223 

Comparative  Inaction  in  the  first  Half  of  the  Seventeenth  Century  226 

Efficacy  of  the  Edict  of  Faith 227 

Growth  of  Judaism — Active  Persecution  commences  in  1642    .      .  229 

Autos  de  Fe  of  1646,  1648  and  1649 230 

Auto  de  Fe  of  1659 234 

Cases  of  William  Lamport  and  Joseph  Brunon  de  Vertiz    .      .  236 

Inertia  during  the  Rest  of  the  Century 240 

Solicitation  in  the  Confessional 241 

Temporal  Jurisdiction — Immunity  of  Officials  entitled  to  the 

Fuero 245 

Familiars — Commissioners — Abuse  of  their  Privileges     .      .  247 

Concordia  of  1610 251 

Competencias 252 

Concordia  of  1633 254 

Abusive  Use  of  Power  by  Commissioners 256 

Quarrels  with  Bishops — @ase  of  Bishop  Palafox 257 

Case  of  Doctor  Juan  de  la  Camara 259 

Exemption  from  Military  Service 263 

Censorship — Irreverent    Use    of    Sacred  Symbols — Visitas   de 

Navios 264 

Repression  under  the  Bourbon  Dynasty 267 

Decadence  of  the  Tribunal 269 

Political  Activity  caused  by  the  Revolution — Censorship    .      .      .  272 

Prosecution  of  Miguel  Hidalgo 276 

Suppression  in  1813 288 . 

Re-establishment  in  1815 290 

Prosecution  of  Jose*  Maria  Morelos  292 


xiv  CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Extinction  in  1820       .      .     .   ,;»,lt 297 

Persistent  Intolerance >.,.»»,,  298 

THE  PHILIPPINES. 

Included  in  the  District  of  the  Mexican  Tribunal 299 

A  Commissioner  established  there — His  Powers 300 

Solicitation — Military  Deserters 302 

Trivial  Results .     .  304 

Censorship -.     '.   :-;  '.     .    •.  306 

Conflicts  with  the  Authorities 308 

Audacity  of  the  Commissioners 310 

Commissioner  Paternina  imprisons  Governor  Salcedo  and 

rules  the  Colony 311 

Records  burnt  in  1763 317 

Episcopal  Inquisition  in  China .     .     .     .  317 


CHAPTER  VII — PERU. 

Deplorable  Condition  of  the  Colony  .     .     .     .     .<,.>.     .     .  319 

Episcopal  Inquisition — Its  Activity  .      .      .  ^  *  ;  .     » ;   ;.  .  •     ,  321 

Case  of  Francisco  de  Aguirre 322 

The  Bishops  seek  to  maintain  their  Jurisdiction  ....  325 

The  Tribunal  established  January  29,  1570  .......  326 

The  first  Auto  de  Fe,  November  15,  1573 328 

Organization  and  Powers — Exemption  of  Indians 329 

Supervision  over  Foreigners 332 

Extent  of  Territory — Commissioners  and  their  Abuses     .      .      .  333 

New  Granada  detached  in  1611 — Other  Divisions  proposed   .      .  337 

Finances — Initial  Poverty — Speedy  Growth  of  Confiscations      .  342 

Fruitless  Efforts  to  withdraw  the  Royal  Subvention  .      .      .  344 

Suppression  of  Prebends  for  the  Benefit  of  the  Tribunal     .      .  346 

Enormous  Confiscations  in  the  Auto  de  Fe  of  1639      .      .      .  347 

Other  Sources  of  Income ....-' -if*  .-,<*,;.  -. .  349 

Increased  Expenses  exceed  the  Revenues 350 

Malversations  and  Embezzlements  in  the  Eighteenth  Century  351 

Financial  Condition  at  Suppression  in  1813 354 

Abusive  use  of  arbitrary  Power 355 

Scandalous  conduct  of  Inquisitor  Ulloa 355 

Visitation  of  Juan  Ruiz  de  Prado 357 

His  charges  against  Cerezuela  and  Ulloa 358 

Ulloa's  Visitation  of  the  District  360 


CONTENTS  xv 

PAGE 

Abusive  use  of  arbitrary  Power: 

Inquisitor  Ordonez  y  Flores 362 

Inquisitors  .Gaitan  and  Manozca 363 

Inquisitors  Calderon  and  Unda 366 

Visitation  of  Antonio  de  Arenaza 367 

Paralysis  of  the  Tribunal — Purchase  of  Offices 372 

Quarrels  with  the  Viceroys 373 

Humiliation  of  Viceroy  del  Villar 374 

Complaints  of  succeeding  Viceroys 380 

Conflicts  of  Jurisdictions 382 

Limitation  of  the  Temporal  Jurisdiction  by  Fernando  VI    ...  386 

Quarrels  of  Inquisitor  Amusquibar  with  Archbishop  Barroeta     .  389 

Activity  of  the  Tribunal — Bigamy,  Blasphemy,  Sorcery     .      .      .  390 

Propositions 392 

Solicitation  hi  the  Confessional 393 

Mystic  Impostors — Maria  Pizarro 396 

Angela  Carranza 400 

Quietism — The  Jesuit  Ulloa  and  his  Disciples      ....  406 

Protestantism — English  Prisoners  of  War 412 

Judaism 419 

Portuguese  Immigration  through  Brazil  and  Buenos 

Ayres 421 

Case  of  Francisco  Maldonado  de  Silva 423 

The  Complicidad  Grande— Auto  de  Fe  of  1639      ...  425 

Decline  of  Judaism — Case  of  Dona  Ana  de  Castro      .      .  433 

Punishments 437 

Arbitrary  Inconsistency — Case  of  Francois  Moyen      .      .      .  439 

Censorship 444 

Morals  and  Politics 446 

Decadence  and  Suppression .      .      .      .  447 

Re-establishment  and  Extinction 449 

Work  accomplished 451 


CHAPTER  VIII — NEW  GRANADA. 

Settlement  of  New  Granada 453 

Commissioners  appointed  by  Tribunal  of  Lima 454 

Demand  for  an  Independent  Tribunal      ........  455 

Extent  of  District — Attempt  to  include  Florida 457 

Tribunal  established  in  1610  at  Cartagena 460 

Early  Operations 461 

Sorcery  and  Witchcraft — Blasphemy 462 

Judaism  466 


CONTEXTS 


Inertia—  Sack  of  Cartagena  in  1697  .........  467 

Decadence    ................  468 

Censorship—  The  Copernican  System      ........  470 

Quarrels  with  the  Authorities       ..........  473 

Arbitrary  Control  exercised  by  Inquisitor  Maftozca      .      .      .  473 
Incessant  Broils  —  Inquisitor  Velez  de  Asas  yArgos  —  Fiscal 

Juan  Ortiz    ..............  476 

Visitation  of  Dr.  Martin  Real  in  1643—  Its  Failure   .....  480 

Internal  Dissensions  and  external  Quarrels     .....  483 

Visitation  of  Pedro  Medina  Rico  in  1648  —  Death  of  Inquisitor 

Pereira  and  Secretary  Uriarte      ........  485 

Internal  and  external  Quarrels  continue      ,     ......  488 

Degradation  of  the  Tribunal  ...........  489 

Quarrel  with  Bishop  Benavides  y  Piedrola  —  Inquisitor  Valera     .  491 

Humiliation  of  Governor  Ceballos     .........  498 

Decadence  after  the  Sack  of  1697      .........  499 

Finances  —  The  Royal  Subvention     .........  500 

Wealth  accruing  from  Confiscations      .......  501 

Quarrels  over  the  Subvention     .........  502 

Asserted  Distress  of  the  Tribunal    ........  505 

The  Revolutionary  Junta  banishes  the  Tribunal  in  1810      .      .      .  506 

It  takes  Refuge  in  Santa  Marta  and  Puertobelo  ......  508 

It  returns  to  Cartagena  in  1815   ..........  508 

It  is  extinguished  by  the  United  States  of  Colombia  in  1821      .      .  510 
Influence  of  the  Inquisition  on  the  Spanish  Colonies      .     .     .     .511 


APPENDIX  OF  DOCUMENTS.  517 


THE  INQUISITION 


IN    THE 


SPANISH  DEPENDENCIES. 


CHAPTER  I. 
SICILY. 

THE  island  of  Sicily,  in  the  fifteenth  century,  was  a  portion  of 
the  dominions  of  Aragon.  Like  the  rest  of  the  possessions  of 
that  crown,  it  had  enjoyed  the  benefits  of  the  old  papal  Inquisition 
under  the  conduct  of  the  Dominicans,  but,  as  elsewhere,  towards 
the  close  of  the  Middle  Ages,  the  institution  had  become  nearly 
dormant,  and  at  most  was  employed  occasionally  to  wring  money 
from  the  Jews.  An  effort  to  galvanize  it,  however,  was  made, 
in  1451,  by  the  Inquisitor  Fra  Enrico  Lugardi,  who  produced  a 
fictitious  decree,  purporting  to  have  been  issued  in  1224,  by  the 
Emperor  Frederic  II,  granting  to  the  inquisitors  a  third  of  the 
confiscations,  together  with  yearly  contributions  from  Jews  and 
infidels;  this  was  confirmed  by  King  Alfonso  of  Naples,  and  again, 
in  1477,  by  Ferdinand  and  Isabella.1  When,  in  1484,  the  Spanish 
Inquisition  was  extended  to  Aragon,  Ferdinand  did  not  at  first 
seek  to  carry  its  blessings  to  his  insular  possessions.  February  12, 
1481,  he  had  appointed  Filippo  de'  Barbari,  one  of  his  confessors, 
as  inquisitor  of  Sicily,  Malta,  Gozo  and  Pantelaria,  who  apparently 
did  nothing  to  further  the  cause  of  the  faith,  for  Sixtus  IV,  in 

1  Paramo  de  Origine   S.  Officii  S.  Inquisitionis,  pp.  197-99. — Ripoll    Bullar. 
Ord.  Fr.  Praedic.,  Ill,  510. — La  Mantia,  L'Inquisizione  in  Sicilia,  pp.  16-18  (Torino, 
1886). 
1 


2  SWIL  Y 

letters  of  February  23,  1483,  to  Isabella,  complained  of  the  prev- 
alence in  the  island  of  the  same  heresies  that  pervaded  Spain; 
to  repress  these  he  had  issued  sundry  bulls,  which  had  proved 
inoperative  in  consequence  of  the  opposition  of  the  royal  officials, 
to  his  no  little  grief.  Seeing  the  zeal  displayed  in  Spain,  he  prayed 
and  exhorted  that  it  should  be  extended  to  Sicily  and  that  the 
necessary  royal  favor  be  exhibited  to  the  measures  which  he 
had  taken  and  might  take  in  the  future.1  There  is  no  evidence 
that  this  produced  any  effect,  and  the  institution  seems  to  have 
remained  inert  until,  about  1487,  Torquemada,  as  Inquisitor- 
general  of  Aragon,  appointed  Fray  Antonio  de  la  Peiia  as  inquisi- 
tor who,  on  August  18th  of  that  year,  celebrated  the  first  auto 
de  fe,  in  which  Eulalia  Tamarit,  apparently  a  refugee  from  Sara- 
gossa,  was  burnt.  It  seems  that  a  Dominican,  named  Giacomo 
Roda,  had  been  exercising  the  functions  under  a  commission  from 
the  General  of  his  Order,  who  subsequently  instructed  the  pro- 
vincial, Giacomo  Manso,  to  dismiss  him.  In  1488  la  Pena  left 
Sicily,  appointing  Manso  to  act  during  his  absence,  when  Roda 
reasserted  himself  and  it  required  a  brief  from  Innocent  VIII, 
February  7,  1489,  to  make  him  desist.  In  fact,  at  this  time 
there  seems  to  have  been  some  confusion  between  the  claims  of 
the  papal  and  Spanish  Inquisitions,  for  we  hear  of  another  Domin- 
ican inquisitor,  Pietro  Ranzano,  Bishop  of  Lucera,  to  whom  the 
senate  of  Palermo,  on  January  19,  1488,  took  the  customary 
oath  of  obedience.2 

In  Sicily,  as  in  Spain,  the  objects  of  the  principal  labors  of  the 
Holy  Office  were  the  converts  from  Judaism.  The  Jews  were 
numerous  and  rich  and,  although  popular  hatred  was  perhaps  not 
so  active  as  in  Spain,  it  was  sufficiently  vigorous,  in  1474,  to  bring 


1  Pirri,  Sicilia  Sacra,  p.  910  (Panormi,  1733). — Llorente,  Hist.  crft.  de  la 
Inquisicion  de  Espafia,  Append.  No.  in. 

1  La  Manila,  op.  tit.,  pp.  20-1. — Franchina,  Breve  Rapporto  del  Tribunale  della 
SS.  Inquisizione  in  Sicilia,  pp.  23,  108-16  (Palermo,  1744). 

If  we  may  believe  an  inscription  of  1631,  Ranzano  had  been  inquisitor  in  1482. — 
Jo.  Maricp  Bertini  Sacratissima  Inquisitionis  Rosa  Virginea,  I,  385  (Panormi, 
1662).  He  died  in  1492. 


EXPULSION  OF  JEWS  3 

about  a  massacre,  under  the  pretext  that  they  were  endeavoring 
to  undermine  the  Catholic  faith  by  argument.  The  viceroy,  Lope 
Ximenes  de  Urrea,  hanged  six  of  the  leaders  of  the  movement, 
in  the  hope  of  suppressing  it  but,  undeterred  by  this,  the  populace, 
in  many  places,  sacked  the  Juderias  and  put  the  inmates  to  the 
sword;  five  hundred  thus  were  slain  in  Noto,  six  hundred  in 
Modica  and,  for  several  years,  the  Jews  were  in  constant  fear  of 
massacre,  in  spite  of  royal  and  vice-regal  edicts.1  The  number 
of  victims  in  these  troubles  indicates  how  considerable  was  the 
Jewish  population;  indeed,  in  1450,  they  petitioned  that,  in  the 
assessment  of  a  donation  to  King  Alfonso  of  10,000  florins  they 
might  be  reckoned  as  a  tenth  of  the  population,  a  favor  which 
was  refused  and,  when  in  1491,  the  Jews  were  banished  from 
Provence,  a  large  portion  of  them  flocked  to  Sicily,  attracted  by 
the  favorable  conditions  which  had  long  been  accorded  there  to 
the  race.2 

The  edict  of  expulsion  from  Spain,  in  1492,  was  operative  in 
Sicily,  under  conditions  even  more  repulsively  cruel.  It  was 
published  June  18th,  and  the  day  of  departure  was  fixed  at  Sep- 
tember 18th,  under  pain  of  death  and  confiscation.  At  once  all 
their  valuables  were  seized,  in  a  house  to  house  investigation,  and 
inventories  were  made  of  their  other  possessions.  They  were 
required,  within  the  three  months,  not  only  to  collect  what  was 
due  to  them  and  to  pay  their  debts,  but  also  to  indemnify  the  king 
for  their  special  tributes  by  capitalizing  the  annual  aggregate,  on 
a  basis  of  four  per  cent,  interest.  On  August  13th  an  order  was 
issued  to  license  each  to  take  a  suit  of  common  clothes,  a  mattress, 
a  pair  of  worn  sheets,  a  coverlet,  three  tari  in  money  (equivalent 
to  half  a  florin),  and  a  few  provisions  for  the  journey.  Reduced 


1  Zurita,  Anales   de  Aragon,  Lib.  xix,  cap.  xiv. — Giov.  di  Giovanni,  L'Eb- 
raismo  della  Sicilia,  pp.  190-1  (Palermo,  1748). 

2  Giovanni,  pp.  21,  96. 

Isidor  Loeb  considers  the  ordinary  computations  to  be  grossly  exaggerated 
and,  from  the  statistics  of  several  places,  assumes  the  total  to  have  been  not 
more  than  from  twenty  to  thirty  thousand. — Revue  des  Etudes  Juives,  1887,  p, 
172. 


4  SICILY 

to  despair,  the  Jews  of  Palermo  petitioned  to  be  allowed  to  retain 
money  enough  to  pay  their  passages;  that  the  rich  could  leave 
their  property  on  deposit,  and  that  poor  debtors  might  be  dis- 
charged from  prison  a  month  in  advance.  This  drew  from  the 
viceroy  an  edict  allowing  the  rich  to  take  twice  as  much  as  the 
poor,  except  in  the  matter  of  clothes.  Not  only  their  mattresses 
were  to  be  searched  for  money  and  jewels,  but  even  the  cavities  of 
their  bodies,  for  which  examiners  of  both  sexes  were  appointed. 
A  payment  of  fifty  thousand  florins  to  the  king  procured  a  post- 
ponement of  three  months,  until  December  18th,  and  during  the 
interval  the  composition  for  their  tributes  was  agreed  upon,  at  a 
hundred  thousand  more,  on  payment  of  which  they  were  to  be 
allowed  to  take  what  was  left  of  their  inventoried  goods,  but  all 
precious  metals  and  jewels  were  required  to  be  turned  into  mer- 
chandise. There  was  delay  in  collecting  these  sums,  causing  a 
further  postponement  of  departure  until  January  12,  1493. l  As 
the  object  of  the  measure  was  the  salvation  of  souls,  the  alter- 
native of  conversion  was  offered,  to  which  the  Jews  were  urged 
by  a  proclamation  of  Torquemada  and  by  promises  from  the 
bishops  and  the  viceroy.  Ferdinand,  however,  was  not  disposed 
thus  to  forego  the  opportunity  of  despoiling  his  Jewish  subjects, 
and  issued  an  order  requiring  them  to  purchase  the  privilege  of 
baptism  with  the  surrender  of  forty-five  per  cent,  of  their  prop- 
erty, which  must  have  brought  him  in  a  considerable  sum  for, 
in  spite  of  it,  the  rigorous  terms  imposed  upon  the  exiles  drove 
many  into  the  Christian  fold.2 

These  compulsory  Christians,  always  suspected,  and  generally 
with  reason,  of  secretly  cherishing  their  ancient  faith,  furnished 
a  larger  and  more  lucrative  field  for  inquisitorial  operations,  but 

1  Giovanni,  p.  210. — This  celeste  benefizio,  as  the  pious  author  terms  it,  proved 
so  destructive  to  the  commercial  prosperity  of  the  island  that,  in  1695,  the  Jews 
were  invited  to  return,  under  certain  rigorous  restrictions.  As  they  manifested 
no  readiness  to  avail  themselves  of  the  permission,  the  invitation  was  repeated 
in  a  more  attractive  form  in  1727  and,  this  proving  unavailing,  still  further  in- 
ducements were  offered  in  1740.  Even  this,  however,  did  not  produce  the  desired 
effect  and  the  edict  was  revoked  in  1747. — Ibidem,  pp.  239-42. 

3  Giovanni,  pp.  233-5 


DISORGANIZATION  5 

there  seems  to  have  been  no  immediate  haste  to  cultivate  it,  and 
there  is  no  trace  of  increased  inquisitorial  activity  during  the 
remaining  years  of  the  century.  In  December,  1497,  Micer  Sancho 
Marin,  inquisitor  of  Sardinia,  was  ordered  to  transfer  himself  to 
Sicily;  he  was  in  no  haste  to  obey  and,  on  March  11,  1498,  Ferdi- 
nand wrote  to  him  angrily  that  he  was  doing  no  good  where  he 
was  and  was  much  wanted  in  his  new  post,  wherefore  he  was 
commanded  summarily  to  go  there  and  leave  all  the  effects  of  the 
Sardinian  tribunal  for  his  successor.  Short  as  was  his  career  in 
Sicily,  he  managed  to  disorganize  the  Inquisition  and  to  incur 
general  detestation.  Before  the  year  was  out,  Ferdinand  ordered 
him  home  and,  on  January  20,  1499,  he  sent  for  all  the  other 
officials  to  return.  To  get  back,  Marin  borrowed  three  hundred 
ounces,1  without  making  provision  for  repayment;  to  settle  this 
and  other  debts  and  to  pay  for  the  homeward  voyage  of  the  offi- 
cials, Ferdinand  ordered  his  viceroy  to  give  to  the  receiver  of  con- 
fiscations, who  was  practically  the  treasurer,  eight  hundred  ducats, 
with  a  significant  order  to  see  that  the  parties  were  not  maltreated, 
which  indicates  the  feelings  popularly  entertained  for  them.  The 
eight  hundred  ducats  apparently  were  not  easily  raised,  for  corre- 
spondence continued  during  the  rest  of  the  year  as  to  the  payment 
of  debts  and  salaries;  Pedro  de  Urrea,  the  receiver,  fell  into  dis- 
grace and  Ferdinand,  in  August,  sent  the  notary,  Ximeno  Mayoral, 
to  make  copies  of  all  the  papers  in  the  tribunal,  in  order  to  be  able 
to  straighten  out  matters.2  Apparently  the  officials  had  been 
intent  solely  upon  their  own  gains,  allowing  the  affairs  of  the 
tribunal  to  fall  into  complete  confusion,  and  had  confined  their 
operations  to  selling  pardons  and  exemptions  for,  when  the 
auditor  examining  Urrea's  accounts  asked  for  certificates  of  all 
who  were  condemned  or  penanced  during  his  tenure  of  office, 
Ferdinand  epigrammatically  replied  that,  as  there  were  none 
condemned  or  penanced,  no  certificates  were  required.  It  is  true 
that  there  is  mention  of  a  certain  Inigo  de  Medina  as  having  died 

1  The  Sicilian  onza  was  nearly  equivalent  to  2T\  ducats. 

1  Archive  general  de  Simancas,  Consejo  de  la  Inquisicion,  Libro  1. 


6  SICILY 

in  prison,  but  he  had  not  been  arrested  as  a  heretic  and  his  seques- 
trated property  was  ordered  to  be  returned  to  his  widow.1 

Evidently  the  Sicilian  Inquisition  thus  far  had  been  a  failure 
and  thorough  reorganization  was  necessary.  It  was  for  this  that 
Ferdinand  had  recalled  the  officials  and,  after  an  interval  of  some 
months,  he  proceeded  to  replace  them.  A  letter  of  July  27,  1500, 
to  Montoro,  Bishop  of  Cefalu,  announced  his  appointment  as 
inquisitor,  together  with  that  of  the  bearer,  Doctor  Giovanni 
Sgalambro  as  his  colleague,  with  whom  were  sent  Diego  de  Obre- 
gon  as  receiver,  and  Martin  de  Vallejo  as  alguazil,  the  rest  of  the 
officials  being  left  for  his  selection.  At  the  same  time  the  viceroy 
was  instructed  to  show  them  all  favor,  to  lodge  them  in  some  suit- 
able building  and  to  advance  to  Obregon  780  gold  ducats  for 
salaries,  the  sum  to  be  repaid  out  of  the  expected  confiscations.2 
The  Sicilian  tribunal,  however,  was  doomed  to  be  unlucky.  Ferdi- 
nand speedily  discovered  that  Sgalambro  was  utterly  unfit  for  the 
position  and,  on  November  6th,  we  find  him  writing  in  hot  haste 
to  Inquisitor-general  Deza  that,  after  it  had  had  so  unfortunate  a 
beginning,  Sgalambro 's  incumbency  would  destroy  it;  he  had  sent 
to  Valencia  to  stop  his  departure,  but  too  late,  and  now  he  in- 
structs Deza  to  select  some  good  jurist  for  the  place,  as  soon  as 
possible,  and  before  some  evil  is  wrought  in  Sicily.3  This  eager- 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  2,  fol.  23,  24. 

3  Under  the  same  date  Obregon  was  ordered  to  pay  salaries  as  follows : 

Doctor  Johan  Sgalambro,  inquisitor 6000  sueldos  jaquensei. 

Martin  de  Vallejo,  alguazil 6000         "  " 

Johan  Crespo,  portero      .  500        "  " 

A  notario  del  secreto  ^  ( 2500 

A  notario  de  los  secuestros       T°  be  aPP°inted  by  the 
A  fiscal  \       inquisitors 

Diego  de  Obregon,  receiver 6000        "  " 

— Archivo  de  Simancas,  ubi  sup. 

Although  no  salary  is  here  provided  for  the  Bishop  of  Cefalu,  it  does  not  fol- 
low that  bishops  were  expected  to  serve  gratuitously.  When  Pedro  de  Belorado 
was  sent  to  Sicily  as  Archbishop  of  Messina  and  inquisitor,  Obregon  was  ordered, 
Sept.  10, 1501,  to  pay  him  the  same  salary  as  that  of  Sgalambro  whom  he  replaced. 
— Ibidem. 

The  sueldo  was  one-twentieth  of  the  libra,  which  was  nearly  equivalent  to  the 
Castilian  ducat. 

1  Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  1. 


GRADUAL  ORGANIZATION  7 

ness,  however,  speedily  subsided  and  Sgalambro  was  allowed  to 
retain  his  office  for  a  year.  On  November  8th,  Montoro  and  he 
issued  an  edict  requiring  the  surrender  of  all  official  papers  by 
those  formerly  connected  with  the  tribunal;  also  one  prohibiting 
all  Converses,  or  baptized  Jews,  from  leaving  the  island  without 
special  licence,  under  pain  of  excommunication,  confiscation  and 
arbitrary  penalties,  and  offering  to  informers  ten  per  cent,  of  the 
confiscations.  In  December,  the  viceroy  and  all  public  officials 
took  the  customary  oath  of  obedience  and  the  inquisitors  issued 
an  Edict  of  Grace,  promising  relief  from  death  and  confiscation  to 
all  heretics  who  would,  within  fifteen  days,  come  forward  and 
confess  fully  as  to  themselves  and  their  associates.  This  was 
accompanied  with  an  Edict  of  Faith,  ordering  all  cognizant  of 
heresy  to  denounce  it  within  fifteen  days,  threatening  those  who 
omitted  to  do  so  with  prosecution  for  fautorship  of  heresy  and 
promising  secrecy  for  informers.  This  latter  edict  apparently 
brought  in  few  denunciations,  for  it  was  repeated  on  January  14, 
1501,  and,  at  the  same  time,  was  published  a  decree  of  the  inquisi- 
tor-general, announcing  the  disabilities  of  the  descendants  of  those 
convicted  of  heresy.  That  these  proceedings  were  as  yet  a  novelty 
in  Sicily  is  apparent  from  a  monition  issued  by  the  inquisitors  to 
the  president  of  the  states  of  the  Camera  reginale  not  to  impede  in 
those  districts  the  publication  of  the  edicts.1 

Evidently  the  Inquisition  was  rapidly  becoming  organized  for 
work,  but  it  still  lacked  a  fixed  habitation  for,  on  August  22d, 
Ferdinand  wrote  to  his  viceroy  that  a  house  was  necessary  for  it 
and,  as  the  one  occupied  by  Mosen  Johan  Chilestro,  the  royal 
carver,  was  suitable,  it  was  to  be  taken  for  the  purpose ;  he  had  no 
recollection  that  it  had  been  given  to  the  latter  except  for  life 
but,  if  the  heirs  could  prove  a  gift  in  perpetuity,  they  should  be 
paid  a  suitable  rent.  Apparently  the  labors  of  the  tribunal  were 
beginning  to  promise  results  in  the  long-expected  confiscations, 
for  a  letter  of  September  4th  empowers  the  receiver  Obregon  to 
compound  a  suit  against  Johan  de  San  Martin,  for  property 

1  La  Mantia,  pp.  23,  25,  26,  28. 


8  SICILY 

derived  through  his  brother  and  father,  for  five  thousand  florins 
and  more  if  it  could  be  obtained.  It  would  seem,  however,  that 
as  yet  the  status  and  privileges  of  the  officials  were  not 
clearly  recognized  in  Sicily,  for  a  letter  of  September  10th  to  the 
viceroy  urges  him  to  see  that  the  inquisitors  enjoy  the  immunities 
and  exemptions  conceded  to  them  by  the  Holy  See  and  that  the 
officials  are  as  well  treated  as  in  the  rest  of  the  Spanish  dominions.1 

At  length  a  successor  was  found  for  Sgalambro  in  the  person  of 
Pedro  de  Belorado,  an  old  Spanish  inquisitor,  now  Archbishop- 
elect  of  Messina,  to  whom  Obregon  was  ordered,  September  30th, 
to  pay  the  same  salary.2  The  people  had  not  even  yet  become 
accustomed  to  the  arbitrary  methods  of  the  Holy  Office,  for  the 
earliest  act  by  which  Belorado  makes  himself  known  to  us  is  his 
excommunication  of  the  magistrates  and  judges  of  the  town  of 
Catania  as  impeders  of  the  Inquisition,  because  they  had  prevented 
the  alguazil  Martin  de  Vallejo  from  removing  from  their  city 
certain  New  Christians  whom  he  had  arrested.  Vallejo  had 
vindicated  his  office  by  imposing  on  the  spot  a  fine  of  a  thousand 
ducats  on  the  offenders,  and  this  Belorado  confirmed.  In  1502 
we  find  him  issuing  fresh  Edicts  of  Grace  and  of  Faith  and,  in  1503, 
Deza  empowered  him  and  Montoro  to  act  either  independently 
or  conjointly.3  It  would  seem  that  the  governor  of  the  districts 
of  the  Camera  reginale  was  still  recalcitrant,  for  a  letter  from 
Ferdinand,  August  13,  1504,  orders  him  to  favor  the  operations  of 
the  tribunal,  "for  our  officials  have  naught  to  do  but  what  we 
ourself  do,  which  is  to  obey  the  Holy  Office. "4 

There  is  not  much  evidence  of  activity  at  this  period,  but  an 
auto  de  fe  was  celebrated,  August  11,  1506,  in  which  was  burnt 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  1. 

2  Ibidem.     Sgalambro  managed  to  regain  the  royal  favor,  for  a  letter  of  Fer- 
dinand, April  23,  1506,  gratifies  him  with  the  Cistercian  abbey  of  S.  Maria  di 
Terrana,  burdened,  however,  with  a  pension  of  eighty  ducats  to  the  official 
chronicler,   Luca  de   Marinis,    better   known   as   L.   Marinseus   Siculus. — Pirri 
Sicilia  Sacra,  I,  670. 

1  La  Mantia,  pp.  27,  28. 

«  Parecer  de  Martin  Real  (MSS,  of  Bodleian  Library,  Arch  Seld.,  130). 


COMMENCING  ACTIVITY  9 

Olivieri  de  Mauro,  a  renegade  Christian.1  Probably  this  was 
followed  by  others,  of  which  the  records  have  not  reached  us,  but 
the  troubles  of  the  tribunal  were  not  yet  over  and,  in  1509,  it  was 
practically  suspended  for  awhile,  for  the  Bishop  of  Cefalu  was 
transferred  to  Naples,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter;  Belorado  died, 
the  receiver  Obregon  was  in  Spain,  and  the  other  officials  appar- 
ently dispersed,  as  there  was  no  money  to  pay  their  salaries.  At 
length  a  successor  was  found  in  Doctor  Alonso  Bernal,  whose 
appointment  Ferdinand  announced  to  the  viceroy,  January  19, 
1510,  but  he  was  in  no  haste  to  assume  the  duties  for,  on  April  2d 
Ferdinand  was  obliged  to  furnish  him  with  sixty  ducats  to  expedite 
his  departure  from  Valencia.  Obregon  accompanied  him  and,  as 
the  whole  staff  of  the  tribunal  had  disappeared,  he  was  empowered 
to  fill  their  places  and  regulate  their  salaries,  which  were  to  be 
paid  out  of  three  hundred  ducats  to  be  advanced  by  the  royal 
treasurer  and  to  be  repaid  out  of  the  first  proceeds  of  the  expected 
confiscations.2  The  need  of  money  was  doubtless  an  incentive 
to  active  work.  Bernal  lost  no  time  in  getting  the  tribunal  into 
shape  and,  by  August  27th,  we  hear  of  his  having  many  prisoners, 
for  whose  safe-keeping  he  had  spent  fifty  ducats  in  arranging  a 
gaol.3  The  result  of  this  industry  manifested  itself  in  an  auto  de 
fe,  celebrated  June  6,  1511,  in  which  eight  persons  were  burnt.4 

He  was  speedily  furnished  with  a  colleague,  for  royal  letters  of 
June  18th  and  24th  inform  us  of  the  appointment  of  a  second 
inquisitor,  in  the  person  of  Doctor  Diego  de  Bonilla,  promoted  from 
the  position  of  fiscal,  to  whom  Obregon  was  ordered  to  pay  a  salary 
of  6000  sueldos,  while  the  new  fiscal,  Leonardo  Vazquez  de  Cepeda 
was  to  receive  2000  and  the  notary,  Pedro  de  Barahona  the  same. 
It  was  one  thing,  however,  to  grant  salaries  and  quite  another  to 
get  them  paid,  in  the  habitual  mismanagement  of  inquisitorial 
business.  From  a  letter  of  September  17th  we  learn  that  Obregon 


1  La  Mantia,  p.  28. 

2  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  3,  fol.  51,  52,  77,  81,  82,  83. 
8  Ibidem,  fol.  127. 

4  La  Mantia,  p.  29. 


10  SICILY 

had  left  Sicily  in  the  fleet,  placing  as  his  substitute  his  son,  a  boy 
of  15  or  16.  The  salaries  had  fallen  greatly  in  arrears  and  the 
boy  declared  that  he  had  no  funds  save  twenty  ounces,  while 
Inquisitor  Bernal  asserted  that  he  had  imposed  fines  and  pecu- 
niary penances  to  the  amount  of  thirteen  hundred  ducats,  besides 
considerable  confiscations,  which  should  be  ample  to  meet  all 
salaries  and  expenses,  whereupon  Ferdinand  ordered  the  viceroy 
to  investigate  the  accounts  and  discover  where  the  money  had 
gone.1 

These  were  not  the  only  difficulties  which  the  tribunal  had  to 
encounter.  Accustomed  as  the  people  had  been  for  centuries  to 
the  existence  of  the  Inquisition,  the  Spanish  institution  was  a  very 
different  affair,  not  only  as  to  activity  and  severity  but  still  more 
from  the  privileges  and  immunities  claimed  and  enforced  by  its 
officials  and  their  servants  and  familiars,  especially  their  exemp- 
tion from  taxes  and  import  dues  and  their  fuero  or  right  to  the 
jurisdiction  of  the  Inquisition,  whether  as  plaintiffs  or  defendants, 
giving  rise  to  perpetual  irritation  through  the  oppression  and 
injustice  thus  rendered  possible.  These  innovations  were  not 
admitted  without  resistance,  which  Ferdinand  sought  to  repress 
by  a  letter  of  September  10,  1508,  ordering  Belorado  to  see  that 
his  officials  were  as  well  treated  in  these  respects  as  elsewhere  in 
the  Spanish  dominions.  This  received  scant  obedience  for,  on 
November  14,  1509,  he  wrote  to  the  stratico  of  Palermo  expressing 
extreme  displeasure  on  learning  that  he  had  arrested  a  scrivener 
of  the  tribunal  and  had  deprived  other  officials  of  their  arms;  in 
future  he  must  maintain  their  privileges  and  exemptions  and 
show  them  every  favor  and  protection.2  Yet  Ferdinand  knew 
that  the  troubles  arose  from  the  over-weening  pretensions  of  the 
tribunal  and  its  officials  for,  in  a  letter  of  July  30,  1510,  to  Bernal 
he  attributed  them  to  the  exorbitant  invasions  of  the  royal  juris- 
diction by  the  inquisitors  and  their  appointment  of  men  of  evil 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  3,  fol.  134,  148,  153. 
1  Portocarrero,  Sobre  la  Competencia  en  Mallorca,  n.  38  (Madrid,  1624). — 
Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  3,  fol.  30. 


COMPLAINTS  11 

life  who  caused  scandal  and  infamy.  Bernal  must  bear  in  mind 
that,  in  Sicily,  the  prerogatives  of  the  crown  were  greater  than 
elsewhere;  whenever  he  had  to  take  action  in  matters  unconnected 
with  heresy  he  must  consult  the  viceroy  or  advocate  fiscal,  so  as 
to  avoid  prejudice  to  the  royal  pre-eminence;  he  must  also  furnish 
to  the  viceroy  a  list  of  officials,  servants  and  familiars,  the  latter 
not  to  exceed  ten  in  number.1 

Inquisitors,  especially  of  distant  tribunals,  were  not  accustomed 
to  pay  much  heed  to  instructions  inculcating  moderation  in  the 
exercise  of  their  powers  and  the  Sicilians  were  indisposed  to  sub- 
mission. We  learn  from  a  royal  letter  of  December  25,  1510,  that 
the  jurats  objected  to  taking  the  customary  oath  of  obedience  to 
inquisitors  and  that  the  local  authorities  persisted  in  levying 
taxes  on  the  officials.2  Relations  were  strained  and  disaffection 
grew  until  there  was  an  explosion  on  St.  Bernard's  day,  August  20, 

1511,  when  the  people  rose  with  demands  that  the  privileges  of 
the  officials  should  be  curtailed — a  rising  which  cost,  it  is  said, 
the  lives  of  a  thousand  Spanish  soldiers.3    Neither  this  warning 
nor  Ferdinand's  exhortations  abated  the  pretensions  of  the  Holy 
Office.     A  letter  of  the  viceroy,  Hugo  de  Moncada,  September  6, 

1512,  relates  that  when  some  troops  pursued  a  band  of  robbers 
and  arrested  them  in  the  country-house  of  an  inquisitor,  where 
they  had  sought  refuge,  the  latter  threatened  the  captain  and  his 
men  with  excommunication  if  the  prisoners  were  not  released 
and  then  claimed  jurisdiction  to  try  them,  on  the  ground  of  the 
place  of  their  capture.4    This  was  by  no  means  an  isolated  case 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  3,  fol.  116.     In  December,  however, 
Ferdinand  increased  the  number  of  familiars  to  twenty  in  each  large  city. — 
Ibidem,  fol.  135. 

2  Ibidem,  fol.  127. 

3  Parecer  de  Martin  Real,  ubi  sup.     Possibly  this  is  too  absolute  an  attribution 
of  the  troubles  of  1511  to  the  Inquisition,  though  Doctor  Real,  as  an  official  of  the 
tribunal,  ought  to  be  good  authority,  even  though  not  a  contemporary.      Fazelli, 
who  was  a  boy  at  the  time,  says  (De  Rebus  Siculis.  Decad.  n,  Lib.  ix,  cap.  11)  that 
it  was  occasioned  by  the  outrages  committed  by  the  unpaid  and  starving  Spanish 
troops. 

*  Llorente,  Anales  de  la  Inquisition,  II,  26. 


12  SICILY 

for  soon  afterwards  two  other  flagrant  examples  of  similar  char- 
acter evoked  from  Ferdinand,  October  25th,  an  order  to  rescind 
their  action,  coupled  with  an  expression  of  extreme  displeasure 
at  their  thus  affording  protection  to  malefactors  on  one  pretext 
or  another.  Their  behavior  in  the  custom-house  to  evade  the 
payment  of  duties  was  a  further  subject  of  animadversion  and  he 
warned  them  sternly  to  avoid  in  future  creating  such  scandals.1 

This  somewhat  exuberant  zeal  in  asserting  their  privileges  was 
accompanied  with  corresponding  activity  in  the  performance  of 
their  regular  duties.  In  1513  there  were  three  autos  de  fe  cele- 
brated, in  which  the  burnings  aggregated  thirty-nine,  a  large  por- 
tion being  of  those  who  had  been  previously  reconciled  and  had 
relapsed,  thus  indicating  the  increased  vigilance  of  the  tribunal.2 
A  further  evidence  of  this  was  the  arrival,  in  September,  1513, 
at  Naples,  of  four  hundred  fugitives,  including  a  number  of  priests 
and  friars,  to  escape  the  rigor  of  the  inquisitors,  who  they  said 
were  endeavoring  to  force  confessors  to  reveal  the  confessions  of 
their  penitents.3  One  gratifying  result  of  this  activity  was  the 
financial  ease  afforded  by  the  resultant  large  confiscations.  A 
letter  of  Ferdinand's  to  Obregon,  June  27,  1513,  calls  his  attention 
to  them  and  to  those  anticipated  from  the  number  of  prisoners  on 
trial,  requiring  greater  care  than  had  hitherto  been  devoted  to 
the  management;  the  officials  were  now  receiving  their  salaries 
and  doing  their  duty.  In  spite  of  this  warning  we  find,  a  year 
later,  that  Obregon  had  abruptly  quitted  Palermo,  leaving  the 
affairs  of  the  office  in  confusion,  rendering  necessary  the  appoint- 
ment, June  15,  1514,  of  a  successor,  Garci  Cid,  who  was  instructed 
to  reduce  it  to  order  and  to  invest  in  ground-rents  twelve  hundred 
ounces  which  Obregon  had  deposited  in  a  bank.4  That  the  profits 
of  persecution  continued  is  evidenced  by  a  gift  made,  March  30, 
1515,  by  Ferdinand,  to  his  wife,  Queen  Germaine,  of  all  the  con- 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  3,  fol.  202  (see  Appendix). 
*  La  Mantia,  pp.  30-32. 

1  Amabile,  II  Santo  Officio  in  Napoli,  I,  109  (Citta  di  Castello,  1892). 
4  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  3,  fol.  239,  294,  296,  314. 


COMPLAINTS  13 

fiscations  of  that  year,  in  the  city  of  Syracuse  and  district  of  the 
Camera  reginale,  up  to  the  sum  of  ten  thousand  florins — a  gift 
which  Garcf  Cid  was  ordered  to  keep  secret  until  after  he  should 
have  rendered  a  statement  of  all  that  was  on  hand  and  was 
expected.1 

It  is  perhaps  not  surprising  that  this  increased  effectiveness  of 
the  tribunal  stimulated  popular  discontent,  which  found  expres- 
sion in  a  petition  from  the  Sicilian  Parliament  asking  Ferdinand 
that  the  Inquisition  be  required  to  observe  the  ancient  canons  and 
methods  of  procedure,  for  many  of  those  burnt  in  the  autos 
asserted  their  innocence,  declaring  that  their  confessions  had  been 
extorted  by  torture  and  dying  with  every  sign  of  being  good 
Christians.  It  was  further  asked  that  some  limit  be  put  to  the 
issue  of  licences  to  bear  arms  and  as  to  the  kind  of  persons  licen- 
sed; that  the  judge  of  confiscations  should  have  a  fixed  salary  and 
should  not  exact  fees  and  that  there  should  be  an  appeal  from 
him  to  the  viceroy ;  also  that  those  who  in  good  faith  entered  into 
contracts  with  persons  reputed  to  be  good  Christians  should  be 
able  to  collect  their  debts,  in  place  of  having  them  included  in 
the  confiscation,  the  contrary  practice  being  destructive  to  trade 
and  commerce.2  There  was  also  a  special  embassy  from  Palermo, 
complaining  that  the  inquisitors  required  the  city  authorities  to 
renew  every  year  the  oath  of  obedience  and  that  they  issued 
licences  to  bear  arms  to  men  of  evil  life  who  caused  much  disorder 
and  scandal.3  Ferdinand  promised  relief  of  these  grievances  and, 
in  due  course,  a  fresh  series  of  instructions  was  issued,  in  1515, 
by  Bishop  Martin  de  Aspeitia  and  the  Aragonese  Supreme  Council, 
or  Suprema.  It  limited  the  number  of  familiars  to  thirty  for 
Palermo,  to  twenty  for  Messina  and  Catania,  to  fifteen  for  Syracuse 
and  Trapani  and  to  not  over  ten  in  other  places;  they  were  to  be 
men  of  approved  character  and  were  to  carry  certificates  identify, 
ing  them,  in  the  absence  of  which  they  could  be  disarmed  by  the 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  fol.  331. 

2  La  Mantia,  pp.  38,  39. 

3  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  3,  fol.  311. 


14  SICILY 

secular  authorities.  If  officials  were  accused  of  serious  crime, 
the  evidence  was  to  be  sent  to  the  inquisitor-general  when,  if  the 
proof  was  sufficient,  the  offender  would  be  dismissed  and  the 
inquisitor  who  had  tolerated  it  would  be  punished.  Officials 
were  deprived  of  the  voz  activa  or  right  as  plaintiffs  to  the  juris- 
diction of  the  tribunal,  although  Dr.  Martin  Real  assures  us  that 
experience  had  already  shown  that  they  could  not  exist  without 
it,  so  universally  were  they  detested.  Their  buying  up  of  claims 
and  matters  in  litigation,  in  which  they  had  the  benefit  of  the 
tribunal  as  a  court,  was  prohibited.  The  dowries  of  wives  were 
protected  from  confiscation  when  husbands  were  convicted  and 
dealings  with  those  in  good  repute  as  Christians  were  held  good, 
in  case  of  confiscation,  so  that  the  claims  of  creditors  were  allowed 
and,  if  the  fisc  desired  to  seize  alienated  real  estate,  it  was  required 
to  refund  the  purchase-money  to  the  buyer.1  There  were  various 
other  reforms  embodied  in  the  instructions,  all  indicating  a  desire 
to  avoid  injustice  to  innocent  third  parties,  but  the  whole  is 
interesting  rather  as  an  exposure  of  customary  abuses  than  as 
effecting  their  removal,  although  when,  towards  the  close  of  1514 
a  new  inquisitor,  Miguel  Cervera  by  name,  was  sent  to  Sicily,  he 
was  ordered  to  obey  to  the  letter  the  instructions  of  Torquemada 
and  his  successors  and  not  to  increase  the  number  of  officials 
without  permission.2 

However  praiseworthy  may  have  been  the  intentions  at  head- 
quarters, it  was  impossible  to  control  the  tribunal  or  to  allay 
popular  hostility,  which  found  opportunity  for  expression  after 
the  death  of  Ferdinand,  February  23,  1516.  Hugo  de  Moncada 
had  held  the  office  of  viceroy  for  six  years  and  had  earned  uni- 
versal hatred  by  his  cruelty,  greed  and  lust.  Among  other 
devices,  he  had  monopolized  the  corn-trade  and,  by  his  exporta- 
tions,  had  reduced  the  island  almost  to  starvation,  though  its 
fertility  rendered  it  the  granary  of  the  Mediterranean,  while  the 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  918,  fol.  379. — Martin  Real,  ubi  sup. 
J  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  3,  fol.  314;  Lib.  933. 


TUMULT  OF  1516  15 

poverty  of  the  people  was  aggravated  by  an  adulterated  currency.1 
He  concealed  the  news  of  Ferdinand's  death,  in  hopes  of  reap- 
pointment  by  Charles  V,  but  it  became  known  and  the  people, 
led  by  some  powerful  nobles,  claimed  that  his  commission  had 
expired.  While  the  popular  mind  was  thus  excited,  Fra  Hier- 
onimo  da  Verona,  in  his  lenten  sermons  in  Palermo,  denounced 
as  sacrilegious  the  wearing  of  red  crosses  on  the  green  penitential 
sanbenitos  of  the  reconciled  heretics,  who  were  very  numerous, 
and  he  urged  the  people  to  tear  off  the  symbol  of  Christ  from  the 
heretical  penitents.  His  advice  was  followed  and  the  aspect  of 
the  mob  grew  more  and  more  threatening.  Moncada  attempted 
to  quiet  matters  by  proclaiming  Charles  and  Juana,  abolishing 
an  obnoxious  corn-tax  and  exhibiting  letters  from  Charles  con- 
firming him  in  office.  These  were  denounced  as  forgeries;  a  man 
who  demanded  to  see  them  was  arrested  by  the  prefect  and  rescued 
by  the  people,  while  the  prefect  was  obliged  to  fly  for  his  life. 
That  night,  March  7,  1516,  an  immense  crowd,  with  artillery 
taken  from  the  arsenal,  besieged  the  vice-regal  palace;  Moncada, 
disguised  as  a  serving-man,  escaped  by  a  postern  to  the  house  of 
a  friend,  whence  he  took  refuge  on  a  ship  in  the  harbor  and  sailed 
for  Messina,  which  consented  to  receive  him.  After  sacking  the 
palace,  the  mob  turned  its  attention  to  the  Inquisition.  Cervera 
saved  his  life  by  taking  a  consecrated  host  in  a  monstrance,  under 


1  Argensola,  Afiales  de  Aragon,  Lib.  I,  cap.  5. — Caruso,  Memorie  istoriche  di 
Sicilia,  T.  VI,  p.  119. 

One  of  Moncada's  arbitrary  acts  concerned  the  Inquisition.  In  1517,  when  the 
receiver  Garci  Cid  was  settling  his  accounts,  he  claimed  credit  for  700  ounces 
which  he  had  deposited  with  a  banker  in  Messina,  where  Moncada  seized  it. 
Cardinal  Adrian  the  inquisitor-general  thereupon  ordered  Inquisitor  Cervera  to 
summon  the  banker  to  return  the  money,  for  the  viceroy  had  express  orders  from 
Ferdinand  not  to  meddle  with  the  property  of  the  tribunal.  If,  however,  the 
banker  could  prove  that  Moncada  had  taken  it  by  force,  then  Garci  Cid  could 
proceed  to  collect  it  from  the  revenues  of  the  Priorazgo  of  St.  John  at  Messina, 
which  belonged  to  Moncada.  If  the  banker  could  not  prove  this,  he  must  pay 
the  money  and  have  recourse  against  the  property  and  revenues  of  Moncada. 
Hereafter,  Adrian  concludes,  no  one  shall  dare  to  take  the  property  of  the  Inqui- 
sition, for  the  Catholic  king  ordered  that  it  should  be  used  to  purchase  rents  for 
the  perpetuation  of  the  tribunal. — Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  933. 


16  SICILY 

protection  of  which  he  gained  the  harbor,  amid  the  jeers  and  insults 
of  the  people,  who  cried  that  he  was  an  inquisitor  and  hunter  of 
money,  not  of  heretics.  He  took  ship  for  Spain,  while  the  mob 
released  the  prisoners,  destroyed  the  records  and  pillaged  the 
property  of  the  Inquisition.  The  Palermitans  followed  this  with 
an  embassy  to  Charles,  complaining  of  the  evil  doings  of  Moncada 
and  the  disorders  caused  by  the  Inquisition  w^ich  had  well-nigh 
destroyed  their  city.  The  sole  object  of  its  officials  they  said  was 
to  accumulate  money  and  they  would  lay  down  their  lives  rather 
than  see  it  restored,  except  under  the  ancient  form  as  carried  on 
by  the  bishops  and  Dominicans.  Cervera  betook  himself  to 
Flanders  to  solicit  his  restoration,  but  the  island  held  out  and, 
for  three  years,  there  was  no  Inquisition  in  Sicily,  except  in 
Messina  and  its  territory.1 

Enlightened  by  the  insurrection  and  the  Palermitan  complaints, 
the  Suprema  or  supreme  council  of  Aragon,  on  August  29,  1516, 
sent  to  Centelles,  Bishop  of  Syracuse,  a  commission  to  investigate 
the  tribunal,  with  a  list  of  interrogatories  from  which  it  appears 
that  Cervera  had  filled  the  office  with  his  kindred  and  servants, 
while  every  kind  of  pillage  and  oppression  is  suggested,  even  to 
the  rifling  of  the  treasure-chest  by  the  officials  on  the  day  of  the 
tumult.  Bishop  Centelles,  however,  had  died  on  August  22d; 
of  course  no  investigation  was  made  and  the  Suprema  contented 
itself  with  expressing,  on  October  27th,  to  Charles  its  gratification 
at  his  determination  to  restore  with  the  greatest  honor  the  tribu- 
nal which  had  been  expelled  with  such  disgrace.2  This,  however, 
was  not  so  readily  accomplished.  Some  seven  months  later,  on 
June  15,  1517,  Charles  wrote  to  the  Sicilian  viceroy  ordering  Cer- 
vera to  be  received  back  and  obeyed  under  penalty  of  the  royal 
wrath  and  three  thousand  crowns  but,  for  a  time,  this  was  a  dead 
letter.  Cervera  returned  to  Spain  when  Charles  went  there,  in 


1  Argensola,  op.  cit.,  Lib.  i,  cap.  5,  34. — Fazelli  de  Rebus  Siculis,  Decad.  n, 
Lib.  10.— La  Mantia,  pp.  40-42.— Dormer,  Afiales  de  Aragon,  cap.  2.— P.  Mart. 
Angler.  Epistt.,  593,  594.— Carta  de  D.  Hugo  de  Moncada,  22  de  Marzo,  1516 
(Coleccion  de  Documentos  in&Iitos,  XXIV,  136). 

*  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  74,  fol.  16;  Lib.  921,  fol.  38. 


RE-ESTABLISHMENT  17 

1517,  and  it  was  not  until  1519  that  Sicily  was  sufficiently  paci- 
fied to  render  it  expedient  to  send  him  back.  A  royal  cedula  of 
May  29,  1519,  announces  this  and  orders  Garci  Cid,  the  receiver, 
to  pay  him  343  ducats  for  his  accrued  salary  without  deduction 
for  absence,  and,  when  the  cedula  of  June  15,  1517,  was  published 
at  last  on  July  6,  1519,  it  was  not  in  Palermo  but  in  Messina, 
where  the  Marquis  of  Monteleone,  the  new  viceroy,  was  still 
residing.  Meanwhile  a  certain  Giovanni  Martino  da  Aquino  had 
been  enjoying  the  title  of  inquisitor  there,  but  he  was  removed, 
May  20,  1519,  in  favor  of  Cervera.  A  second  inquisitor,  Tristan 
Calvete  had  been  appointed  in  1517  and  had  been  welcomed  in 
Messina.1 

Calvete's  first  act  was  to  issue  an  edict,  May  16, 1518,  requiring, 
under  pain  of  excommunication,  all  papers  and  property  of  the 
Inquisition  to  be  returned  within  fifteen  days  and  the  anathema 
duly  followed  on  June  6th.2  Presumably  this  produced  little 
result ;  Palermo,  the  seat  of  the  tribunal  and  scene  of  insurrection, 
had  not  yet  returned  to  obedience;  the  records  had  been  destroyed 
and  their  lack  long  remained  a  source  of  embarrassment.  The 
tribunal  however,  in  1519,  was  re-established  and  fully  manned; 
it  celebrated  an  auto  de  fe,  June  11,  1519  and,  for  five  or  six 
years,  there  seems  to  have  been  one  nearly  every  year,  but  the 
number  of  executions  was  not  large.3  Popular  antagonism  was 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  9,  fol.  39. — Franchina,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
122,  127. 

In  1630  Messina  appealed  to  its  fidelity  on  this  occasion,  when  resisting  a  propo- 
sition to  divide  the  island  into  two  viceroyalties. — Razones  apologeticas  de  la 
noble  Ciudad  de  Mecina,  fol.  48  (Madrid,  1630). 

2  La  Mantia,  p.  42. 

8  Ibidem,  pp.  45-6.     The  autos  were : 

1519,  June  11,  4  men  burnt  and   1  woman. 

1520,  July     8,    3     "  2       " 

1521,  June    9,    1     " 

1524,  Aug.     6,    4     "  1       " 

1525,  Sept.  29,    1     "        "  4       " 

1526,  Aug.    1,    3     "        "  1       " 
Sept.  16,    1     "        " 

A  letter  of  August  19,  1519,  from  the  Suprema  to  Calvete  expresses  the  highest 
satisfaction  with  him  and  offers  him,  on  his  return  to  Spain,  one  of  the  principal 
2 


18  SICILY 

by  no  means  disarmed,  for  we  find  Calvete  issuing,  September  29, 
1525,  two  edicts,  one  commanding  everyone  to  aid  and  favor  the 
Inquisition  and  not  to  defend  heretics,  and  the  other  summoning 
all  cognizant  of  the  numerous  penitenciados  and  their  descend- 
ants, who  disregarded  the  disabilities  imposed  on  them,  to  de- 
nounce them.1 

There  was  ample  cause  for  disaffection,  arising,  not  from 
sympathy  with  heresy,  but  from  the  arbitrary  proceedings  of  those 
who  regarded  persecution  primarily  as  a  source  of  enrichment. 
Instructions  given,  July  31,  1517,  by  Cardinal  Adrian  to  Calvete, 
commence  with  the  remark  that  all  inquisitors  thus  far  sent  to 
Sicily  had  disregarded  the  rules  of  the  Holy  Office,  both  as  to 
civil  and  criminal  procedure,  as  to  confiscations  and  as  to  familiars. 
It  was  therefore  ordered  that  all  officials,  under  pain  of  excom- 
munication, should  inviolably  observe  the  instructions,  including 
those  given  to  Melchor  Cervera;  the  whole  body  of  these  rules 
was  ordered  to  be  read  in  presence  of  all  the  officials  assembled 
for  the  purpose,  a  notarial  act  being  taken  to  attest  the  fact. 
Moreover,  in  addition  to  excommunication  for  violations  of  the 
rules,  the  special  penalties  provided  were  to  be  irrevocably  en- 
forced. Following  this  were  particular  instructions  for  the  cor- 
rection of  abuses  which  indicate  how  completely  the  interests  of 
the  fisc  and  the  rights  of  the  people  were  subordinated  to  official 
cupidity.  One  of  the  practices  prohibited  shows  how  repulsive 


tribunals  of  Castile.  In  1529  we  find  him  Inquisitor  of  Sarogossa. — Archive  de 
Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  74,  fol.  165;  Lib.  76,  fol.  183. 

Calvete's  earlier  years  of  office  were  much  harassed  by  a  suit  brought  against 
him  in  Rome  by  Juan  de  Leon,  a  canon  of  C6rdova.  Prior  to  1516,  Calvete  as 
provisor  of  C6rdova  had  prosecuted  Leon  and  some  others  for  rescuing  a  culprit 
from  an  alguazil.  Leon  nursed  his  wrath  and  when  in  Rome,  in  1519,  commenced 
an  action  against  Calvete  in  the  papal  courts  which  caused  him  so  much  vexation 
that  he  threatened  to  abandon  his  post  in  Sicily  and  return  to  Spain.  Charles  V 
intervened,  writing  repeatedly  to  his  ambassadors,  to  cardinals  and  to  Leon  him- 
self, threatening  him  with  the  seizure  of  his  temporalities,  but  the  vindictive 
canon  held  good  and,  in  1520,  obtained  a  judgement  of  1000  ducats  and  costs,  as 
Calvete  could  not  go  to  Rome  to  defend  himself. — Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inq.,  Lib. 
6,  fol.  74,  75,  78;  Lib.  9,  fol.  52-54. 

1  La  Mautia,  p.  43. 


REFORM  A  TTEMPTED  1 9 

the  religion  of  Christ,  in  such  hands,  was  rendered  to  converts. 
The  inquisitors,  it  appears,  were  in  the  habit  of  making  reconciled 
penitents  and  baptized  neophytes  labor  on  the  fortifications  of 
the  castle;  when  they  did  not  appear  at  the  appointed  hour  they 
were  fined  and  these  fines,  which  were  collected  by  Zamporron, 
the  messenger  of  the  tribunal,  amounted  to  a  considerable  sum, 
of  which  no  account  was  rendered.1  In  this,  as  in  all  similar 
denunciations  of  malversations  and  abuses,  a  noteworthy  feature 
is  that  punishment  is  always  threatened  for  the  future  and  none 
is  inflicted  for  the  past;  no  one  is  dismissed  and  the  thieving  and 
corrupt  officials  are  allowed  unmolested  to  continue  their  career 
of  plunder  and  oppression. 

Apparently  Cardinal  Adrian  was  advised  that  his  instructions 
were  not  obeyed  and  he  sent  Master  Benito  Mercader  as  "  visitor" 
or  inspector  to  report  on  the  condition  of  the  tribunal.  Before 
this  report  was  received,  Adrian  had  passed  through  the  papacy 
to  the  tomb,  and  it  was  acted  upon  by  his  successor,  Manrique, 
Archbishop  of  Seville,  who  issued,  January  31,  1525,  a  fresh  set 
of  instructions,  based  on  its  revelations.  From  this  it  would 
appear  that  there  was  little  in  which  the  inquisitors  and  their 
officials  did  not  violate  the  rules,  both  in  the  conduct  of  trials  and 
management  of  the  finances.  There  seems,  in  fact,  to  have  been 
a  Saturnalia  of  peculation.  Collections  were  made  by  both 
authorized  and  unauthorized  persons,  of  which  no  accounts  were 
kept.  The  fines  and  pecuniary  penances,  which  formed  so  lucra- 
tive a  source  of  income,  were  kept  from  the  knowledge  of  the 
notary  of  sequestrations  so  that  he  could  make  no  charge  of  them 
to  the  receiver.  Officials  claimed  and  received  twenty  or  twenty- 
five  per  cent,  for  discovering  hidden  confiscated  property,  their 
knowledge  of  which  was  acquired  officially.  The  Christian 
slaves  of  condemned  heretics  were  sold  in  place  of  being  set  free, 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  933.  These  instructions  were  probably 
the  result  of  the  report  of  a  visitador  or  inspector,  Juan  de  Ariola,  sent,  towards 
the  close  of  1513,  to  investigate  the  tribunals  of  Majorca,  Sardinia  and  Sicily. — 
Ibidem,  Lib.  3,  fol.  251-4. 


20  SICILY 

according  to  law.  Inquisitors  and  their  subordinates  received 
"presents/'  or  rather  bribes,  from  penitents  and  litigants,  which 
perhaps  explains  the  complaint  that  sentences  to  the  galleys  and 
other  penalties  were  not  executed  and  that  the  disabilities  and 
sanbenitos  of  those  reconciled  were  not  enforced.  There  is  sig- 
nificance in  the  instructions  for  tke  collection  of  the  two  hundred 
gold  ducats,  which  the  late  inquisitor,  Melchor  Cervera,  had 
bequeathed  to  the  Inquisition  for  the  discharge  of  his  conscience — 
probably  but  a  small  portion  of  the  irregular  gains  for  which  he 
had  had  ample  opportunity.  As  a  whole,  this  inside  picture  of 
the  Holy  Office  shows  us  how  completely  it  was  converted  into 
an  engine  for  oppression  and  peculation  and  how  little  there  was 
of  genuine  fanaticism  to  serve  as  an  excuse  for  its  existence,  but, 
as  usual,  there  are  no  dismissals  or  punishments  inflicted  and  the 
only  remedy  proposed  is  the  formal  semi-annual  reading  of  the 
instructions  to  the  officials.  That  they  should  continue  to  be  the 
objects  of  popular  detestation  was  inevitable,  and  the  complaint 
is  made  that  their  maltreatment  and  the  resistance  offered  to 
them  remain  unpunished.1 

This  was  the  only  point  on  which  reformation  was  attempted. 
Charles  V,  in  a  letter  to  his  viceroy,  October  22,  1525,  says  that 
he  understands  that  the  royal  courts  take  cognizance  of  the  cases 
of  the  officials  of  the  tribunal,  which  displeases  him  greatly;  it 
is  his  will  that  the  Holy  Office  shall  be  cherished  and  favored  and 
that  in  all  cases,  civil  and  criminal,  its  officials  are  to  enjoy  the 
immunities  and  privileges  to  which  they  are  entitled;  they  are  to 
exercise  their  functions  with  all  freedom,  under  the  royal  protec- 
tion, guarded  by  the  penalties  expressed  in  the  royal  concessions. 
This  was  supplemented  by  another  ce*dula  of  August  25,  1526, 
taking  the  inquisitors  and  their  officials  under  the  royal  safe- 
guard and  ordering  that  they  should  have  all  aid  and  support 
and  protection  from  the  secular  authorities.2 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  933  (see  Appendix). 
3  Salelles  de  Materiis  Tribunalis  S.  Inquis.,  I,  30  (Romae,  1651). — Franchina, 
pp.   131-7. 


CONTINUED  COMPLAINTS  21 

As  for  the  wrongs  committed  by  the  inquisitors,  their  continu- 
ance is  shown  by  repeated  petitions  from  the  Sicilian  Parliament, 
which  indicate  how  completely  the  instructions  of  1515  and  1517 
were  ignored,  while  Charles's  replies — probably  drawn  up  for  him 
by  the  Suprema — prove  how  little  hope  there  was  of  redress  through 
an  appeal  to  the  throne.  The  Parliament  represented  that  the 
Conversos  who  remained  were  few  and  poor,  the  rest  having 
fled  or  been  condemned,  wherefore  the  inquisitors  despoiled  the 
native  Christians  of  their  property,  to  remedy  which  it  asked  as 
before  that  in  future  the  Inquisition  should  be  conducted  by  the 
bishops  and  Dominicans  as  of  old.  To  this  the  answer  was  that 
he  would  consult  the  pope.  It  was  also  asked  that  Christians 
who  had,  in  good  faith,  made  contracts  with  reputed  Catholics 
and  thus  were  their  creditors,  should  have  their  claims  recog- 
nized and  satisfied  out  of  the  confiscated  property  of  a  condemned 
debtor.  This  shows  that  the  instructions  of  1515  to  this  effect 
had  been  disregarded  and  there  was  little  hope  of  improvement 
in  Charles's  assent  with  the  nullifying  proviso  that  there  must  be 
a  prescription  of  thirty  years'  possession,  concerning  which  he 
would  write  to  the  pope.  A  further  request  was  that  the  dowries 
of  orthodox  wives  should  not  be  subject  to  confiscation  and  that 
children's  portions  should  be  exempted,  to  which  the  reply  was 
"  agreed  as  to  dowries  received  before  the  commission  of  heresy; 
for  the  rest,  the  pope  will  be  consulted."  Another  point  was  that, 
in  case  of  denial  of  justice  or  evident  scandal,  the  viceroy  could 
appoint  some  prelate  who,  with  the  Gran  Corte  or  the  doctors, 
could  decide  the  matter.  This  was  rejected  with  the  declaration 
that  all  appeals  must  be  to  the  inquisitor-general.  It  was  further 
asked  that  each  inquisitor  when  he  came  should  file  his  commission 
in  the  ordinary  public  registers,  so  that  every  one  could  learn 
what  was  his  authority,  for  the  inquisitors  often  exceeded  their 
lawful  powers.  Complaint  was  also  made  that  the  officials  abused 
their  immunities  and  privileges  by  engaging  in  trade  and  it  was 
asked  that  in  suits  thence  arising  they  should  be  subjected  to 
the  vice-regal  or  episcopal  courts,  to  which  Charles  replied 


22  SICILY 

that   he  had  given  orders  to  the  inquisitor-general  to  see  to 
this.1 

Thus  supported,  the  Inquisition  pursued  its  course  and  held 
one  or  more  autos  de  fe  every  year,  until  1534,  though  the  number 
of  burnings  was  not  excessive,  the  summary  for  the  nine  years 
showing  only  thirty-nine  victims  relaxed  to  the  secular  arm,  the 
most  of  whom  suffered  for  relapse  after  previous  conviction  and 
reconciliation.2  While  thus  performing  its  full  duties  to  the  faith, 
the  consciousness  of  imperial  support  had  not  led  it  to  mend  its  ways 
or  to  reform  abuses,  and  popular  opposition  was  undiminished, 
for  Charles  found  it  necessary  to  issue  another  rescript,  January  18, 
1535,  addressed  to  Viceroy  Monteleone,  confirming  at  much  length 
the  privileges  and  exemptions  of  the  officials  from  secular  juris- 
diction and  their  right  to  bear  arms.3  When,  however,  in  the 
following  September,  Charles  visited  Palermo,  on  his  return  from 
his  crusade  to  Tunis,  and  listened  to  the  earnest  representations 
of  the  Parliament,  his  convictions  changed — a  change  possibly 
facilitated  by  a  subsidy  granted  to  him  of  two  hundred  and  fifty 
thousand  ducats  over  and  above  the  ordinary  revenue.4  He  sus- 
pended, for  a  period  of  five  years,  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Inquisition 
in  all  cases  involving  the  death-penalty  and  not  connected  with 
matters  of  faith,  and,  when  this  term  had  elapsed,  he  prolonged 
the  suspension  for  five  years  more.5  The  historians  of  the  Inqui- 

1  La  Mantia,  pp.  44-5. — Parecer  de  Martin  Real,  ubi  sup. 

1  La  Mantia,  pp.  47-8.  8  Paramo,  p.  201. 

4  Montoiche,  Voyage  de  Charles-Quint  au  Pays  de  Tunis  (Gachard,  Voyages  des 
Souverains  des  Pays-has,  III,  378). 

*  Franchina,  p.  169. — "  Havemos  proveydo  y  mandado  que  los  inquisidores 
del  dicho  Reyno  no  hobiesen  de  conocer,  dentro  termino  de  cinco  afios,  de  nin- 
guna  cosa  que  hoviere  pena  de  muerte  contra  ningun  persona  natural  de  dicho 
Reyno." — A  Latin  version  is  printed  by  Paramo,  p.  204. 

The  phraseology  of  the  decree  would  seem  to  suspend  the  spiritual  as  well  as 
the  temporal  jurisdiction  of  the  tribunal  and  historians  have  generally  so  regarded 
it.  This  however  is  impossible  as  the  former  was  a  delegation  from  the  pope  over 
which  the  emperor  had  no  control  and  any  attempt  to  do  so  would  have  been 
equivalent  to  abolishing  the  Inquisition,  while  the  auto  of  1541  shows  that  it 
continued  to  exercise  its  spiritual  jurisdiction.  It  assumed  however  that  its 
capacity  to  suppress  heresy  was  fatally  crippled  by  depriving  its  officials  of  the 
privilege  of  its  exclusive  forum,  as  expressed  in  a  document  quoted  by  Franchina 


TEMPORAL  JURISDICTION  SUSPENDED  23 

sition  tell  us  that  this  resulted  in  the  unchecked  multiplication  of 
heretics  among  the  noblest  families,  while  the  hatred  of  the  people 
for  its  representatives  manifested  itself  without  fear  of  punish- 
ment. There  can,  in  fact,  be  litte  doubt  that  its  operations  were 
crippled  on  this  account,  for  its  officials  were  no  longer  shielded 
from  popular  anger  as  soon  as  offences  committed  against  them 
became  cognizable  by  the  secular  courts  in  sympathy  with  the 
offenders.  Thus  when  the  Inquisitor  Bartolome  Sebastian  made 
a  visitation  of  the  town  of  Jaca,  with  his  officials  and  servants,  and 
published  the  Edict  of  Faith,  the  inhabitants  piled  up  wood 
around  the  house  in  which  they  were  lodged  and  would  have  burnt 
them  all  had  not  the  Baroness  de  la  Florida  assembled  her  kins- 
men and  retainers,  raised  the  siege  and  enabled  them  to  escape. 
Soon  afterwards,  when  the  alguazil  and  his  assistants  went  to  San 
Marcos  to  arrest  some  heretics,  they  were  set  upon  by  Matteo 
Garruba  and  his  accomplices;  he  was  left  for  dead  and  some  of 
his  people  were  slain.1  Apparently  the  danger,  of  which  these 
are  examples,  caused  the  inquisitors  to  confine  their  labors  to 
the  larger  cities  for,  in  January,  1543,  Inquisitor-general  Tavera 
ordered  a  general  visitation  of  the  island,  which  he  says  had  not 
been  performed  for  a  long  while.  In  June  a  new  inquisitor,  the 
Licentiate  Gongora,  was  sent  with  special  instructions  to  carry 
out  this  visitation  and  peremptory  orders  were  issued  by  Prince 
Philip  that  he  and  his  officials  should  be  efficiently  protected.2 
Another  manifestation  of  popular  repugnance  was  the  resistance 


(p.  69) — "Notandum  est  quod  quando  in  anno  1535  fuit  limitata  seu  suspensa 
jurisdictio  temporalis  hujus  Sancti  Officii  in  aliquibus  casibus  per  invictissimum 
imperatorem  Carolum  V  felicis  memorise,  jurisdictio  spiritualis  causarum  fidei 
fuit  in  suspense  et  quasi  mortua."  So  a  consulta  of  the  Suprema  to  Philip  III, 
October  2,  1609,  refers  to  Charles  having  deprived  the  Sicilian  Inquisition  of  its 
temporal  jurisdiction,  resulting  in  such  recrudescence  of  heresy  that  he  was 
obliged  to  restore  it. — Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  927,  fol.  323. 

Inquisitor  Paramo,  in  a  letter  of  November  8,  1600,  to  Philip  III,  states  the 
case  to  be  that  Charles  was  misled  by  false  accounts  of  the  misdeeds  of  the  famil- 
iars and  deprived  them  of  their  immunities  but,  on  being  better  informed,  he 
restored  them. — Ibidem,  Lib.  41,  fol.  258. 

1  Paramo,  pp.  202-3. — Parecer  de  Martin  Real,  ubi  sup. 

8  Franchina,  pp.  149,  159,  163. 


24  SICILY 

offered  to  the  invariable  custom  in  Spain  of  hanging  in  the  churches 
the  sanbenitos  of  the  condemned,  or  linens  with  inscriptions  of 
their  names,  heresies  and  punishment,  thus  perpetuating  their 
infamy,  which  was  one  of  the  severest  features  of  the  penalty  of 
heresy.  Paramo  explains  that  this  was  not  observed  in  Sicily 
for  when,  in  1543,  Inquisitor  Cervera  endeavored  to  introduce  it, 
by  hanging  them  in  the  church  of  St.  Dominic,  there  arose  so 
great  a  tumult  that  he  was  obliged  to  abandon  the  attempt  and 
it  had  never  since  then  been  possible  to  effect  it,  up  to  his  time 
(1598)  .*  To  add  to  the  embarrassment  of  the  tribunal,  it  was 
or  professed  to  be  impoverished.  When  its  alguazil  Marcos 
Calderon  died,  there  was  owing  to  him  for  arrears  of  salary  155 
ounces,  24  tarines  and  9  granos,  and  in  February,  1543,  the  receiver 
Francisco  Cid  declared  his  inability  to  pay  this  to  the  heirs.  To 
relieve  him  the  Suprema  agreed  to  place  half  the  burden  of  this 
on  the  tribunal  of  Granada  and,  by  letter  of  May  30,  1544,  ordered 
Cid  to  pay  the  other  half.2 

In  spite  of  popular  disaffection  and  curtailment  of  temporal 
jurisdiction,  the  Inquisition  continued  its  deadly  work.  On  May 
30, 1541,  there  was  celebrated  at  Palermo  an  auto  in  which  twenty- 
two  culprits  appeared,  nineteen  of  them  for  Judaizing  and  three 
for  Lutheranism — among  the  latter  Fra  Perruccio  Campagna,  a 
tertiary  of  San  Francisco  de  Paola,  who  courted  martyrdom  and 
was  burnt  as  an  obstinate  impenitent  heretic.3  By  this  time 
Lutheranism  was  much  more  dreaded  than  Judaism.  In  view 
of  its  threatening  spread  and  of  the  occasional  outbursts  of  popu- 
lar detestation,  there  was  probably  little  difficulty  in  convincing 
Charles  that  he  had  made  a  mistake  in  limiting  the  exemptions 
of  the  officials;  he  announced  in  advance  his  intention  of  not  pro- 

1  Paramo,  p.  43.  I  give  the  date  of  1543  as  stated  by  Paramo,  but  it  is  evi- 
dently an  error  for  1516,  when  the  tumult  occurred  under  Cervera. 

3  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Sala  40,  Lib.  4,  fol.  136.  The  financial 
mismanagement  of  the  Sicilian  tribunal  was  notorious.  In  1560,  the  Contador- 
general  Zurita  states  that  he  had  finished  auditing  its  accounts  with  much  labor, 
as  they  had  not  been  examined  for  twenty  years  and  were  in  much  disorder. — 
Ibidem,  fol.  239. 

3  La  Mantia,  p.  50. 


CASE  OF  THE  DUKE  OF  TERRANOVA  25 

longing  the  limitation  and,  by  letters  of  February  27,  1543,  he 
ordered  his  Sicilian  officials,  after  the  expiration  of  the  term,  to 
give  the  Inquisition  full  liberty  of  action  and  not  to  interfere  with 
it  in  any  way  under  a  penalty  of  two  thousand  ounces.  When 
the  term  expired,  Prince  Philip,  as  regent  of  the  Spanish  domin- 
ions, by  a  decree  of  June  18,  1546,  published  the  letters  of  1543 
and  ordered  their  strict  observance.1 

It  would  seem  that  even  before  the  expiration  of  the  term  the 
tribunal  arrogantly  and  successfully  asserted  the  immunity  of 
its  officials  from  secular  law.  Juan  de  Aragon,  Duke  of  Terranova, 
was  Constable  and  Admiral  of  Naples,  a  Spanish  grandee  of  the 
first  class  and  kinsman  of  Charles  V,  acting  as  President  or  Gover- 
nor of  Sicily,  in  the  absence  of  the  viceroy.  In  this  capacity  he 
had  occasion  to  torture  and  condemn  to  the  galleys  Maestro 
Antonio  Bertin,  a  familiar,  and  to  imprison  some  other  familiars. 
The  inquisitors  took  up  the  matter  and  sentenced  him  to  perform 
public  penance,  to  release  Bertin  and  to  pay  him  a  solatium  of 
two  hundred  ducats.  The  case  was  of  course  carried  to  Spain, 
where  both  sides  were  heard  and  as  usual  the  decision  was  against 
the  crown  and  in  favor  of  the  Inquisition.  Prince  Philip  conveyed 
this  to  Terranova  by  letter  of  December  16,  1543,  exhorting  him 
to  submit  to  it  willingly  and  not  to  wait  to  be  compelled  by 
excommunication.  Terranova  recalcitrated  against  the  public 
humiliation  and  finally  a  letter  of  Philip,  April  24, 1544,  remitted 
the  penance,  when  the  duke  released  and  compensated  the  crimi- 
nal.2   

1  Franchina,  pp.  167,  183. — Paramo,  p.  204. 

2  Llorente,  Historia  crltica,  cap.  xvi,   art.  ii,  n.  5.     The  date  of  this  affair  is 
not  unimportant  and  has  curiously  been  involved  in  doubt.     As  printed  by 
Llorente,  the  letter  of  December  16,  1543,  is  duly  signed  Prince  Philip  and  is 
doubtless  correctly  dated,  as  Terranova  was  governor  in  1544  (Gervasii  Siculse 
Sanctiones,  I,  295).     It  is  somewhat  remarkable  that  in  the  Simancas  archives 
(Legajo  1465,  fol.  60)  there  are  two  letters  of  Philip  II  on  this  affair,  one  dated 
from  the  Escorial,  April  24,  1568,  to  the  Sicilian  inquisitors  and  the  other  to 
Terranova,  dated  from  Madrid,  April  29, 1568.     The  dates  are  evidently  erroneous 
for  in  that  year  the  Marquis  of  Pescara  was  viceroy  (Gervasii,  III,  121).     Porto- 
carrero  also  blunders  in  the  date  (op.  cit.,  n.  105),  placing  the  affair  in  1608.     La 
Mantia  moreover  says  (p.  52)  that  a  MS.  copy  of  a  letter  of  the  inquisitors, 


26  SICILY 

Such  an  occurrence  does  not  justify  the  assertion  made  by  Prince 
Philip,  June  15,  1546,  when  a  new  inquisitor,  Bartolome  Sebas- 
tian, was  sent  to  Palermo,  that  the  officials  of  the  Sicilian  Holy 
Office  were  held  in  such  contempt  and  were  so  impeded  in  their 
functions  that  they  could  scarce  discharge  their  duties,  wherefore 
special  injunctions  were  laid  on  him  to  exact  from  all  authorities 
the  oath  of  obedience,  while  every  assistance  was  emphatically 
ordered  to  be  rendered  to  him.1  In  fact,  almost  simultaneously 
with  these  utterances,  an  auto  de  fe,  held  June  6,  1546,  showed 
that  there  was  no  impediment  to  the  discharge  of  the  proper 
functions  of  the  inquisition.  In  this  auto  there  were  no  living 
bodies  delivered  to  the  stake,  but  the  effigies  of  four  fugitives 
answered  the  purpose  of  demonstrating  that  the  authority  of  the 
tribunal  was  undiminished.  Sebastian  indicated  how  far  that 
authority  extended  when,  in  1547,  he  repeated  the  prohibition  of 
Converses  expatriating  themselves  and  their  families  under  pain 
of  confiscation,  while  a  fine  of  two  hundred  ounces  was  decreed 
against  shipmasters  transporting  such  persons  without  special 
licence.  This  recrudescence  of  inquisitorial  activity  aroused  the 
Parliament,  which  petitioned  Charles  V  that  the  accused  should 
have  copies  of  the  evidence  against  them,  with  the  names  of  the 
witnesses,  so  that  his  faithful  subjects  should  not  perish  unde- 
fended, through  false  testimony  suborned  by  enmity,  but  the 
emperor  turned  this  off  with  a  vague  promise  that  Sicilians  should 
not  be  unduly  molested.  This  did  not  soothe  popular  hostility, 
for  a  letter  of  the  Regent  Juana  to  the  Viceroy  Juan  de  Vega,  Sep- 
tember 29, 1549,  thanks  him  for  the  solicitude  which  he  has  shown 
in  protecting  the  rights  and  immunities  of  the  Inquisition,  seeing 
that  recently  some  of  its  officials  have  been  wounded  and  slain 
while  discharging  their  duties.  Possibly  this  may  refer  to  the 


April  10th,  bears  a  later  date.  A  letter  of  the  Suprema  to  the  inquisitors, 
prescribing  the  punishment,  is  dated  December  15th,  without  indication  of  the 
year  (Simancas,  Lib.  78,  fol.  372).  It  speaks  of  two  familiars  tortured,  orders 
Terranova  to  hear  mass  in  a  monastery  as  a  penitent  and  to  pay  the  sufferers 
200  ducats,  to  which  the  officials  concerned  in  the  affair  were  to  add  100  more. 
1  Franchina,  p.  174. 


DISORDERED  FINANCES  27 

case  of  Giacomo  Achiti,  who  was  relaxed  to  the  secular  arm,  May 
19,  1549,  for  having  with  others  resisted  and  slain  Giovanni  de 
Landeras,  a  minister  of  the  Inquisition.  Yet  whatever  may  have 
been  the  good  will  of  Vega,  it  was  impossible  for  a  viceroy  to 
perform  his  duties  and  remain  on  good  terms  with  the  Holy  Office. 
In  this  same  year,  1549,  a  certain  D.  Pietro  di  Gregorio  had  torture 
administered  to  a  familiar,  for  which  Alberto  Albertini,  Bishop 
of  Patti  and  inquisitor,  threw  him  in  prison,  when  Vega  liberated 
him  by  force  and  was  duly  reproved  therefore  by  Charles.1 

In  the  numerous  autos  de  fe  which  are  recorded  during  the 
following  years,  it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  Judaism  sinks 
into  the  background  and  that  the  predominant  heresies  punished 
are  Protestant.  The  Inquisition  was  aroused  to  renewed  activity 
and  its  victims,  whether  burnt  or  penanced,  were  numbered  by 
scores.2  It  is  probable  that  peculation  and  waste  continued  for  a 
letter  of  the  inquisitors,  April  2,  1560,  to  Philip  II  congratulates 
him  on  the  prospect  of  some  large  confiscations  impending;  these, 
they  say,  will  relieve  the  tribunal,  which  is  deeply  in  debt  and  it 
is  suggested  to  the  king  that  if  he  will  invest  the  proceeds  in 
ground-rents,  the  income  will  go  far  to  pay  the  salaries  and  per- 
petuate the  institution.  Apparently  the  suggestion  was  unheeded 
for  the  complaints  of  poverty  and  indebtedness  continue;  the 
convicts  are  mostly  poor  people,  whose  property  barely  meets 
their  prison  expenses,  and  some  rich  abbey  is  asked  for,  of  which 
the  revenues  may  be  devoted  to  this  holy  cause.3 

Whether  the  complaint  of  poverty  be  true  or  not,  the  inquis- 
itors had  ample  opportunity  of  irregular  gains.  The  privileges 
and  immunities  of  its  officials  rendered  the  position  of  familiar 
eagerly  sought  for  and,  in  an  age  of  corruption,  we  may  reasonably 
assume  that  it  was  liberally  paid  for.  In  addition  to  this,  the 
exclusive  jurisdiction  over  them,  in  both  civil  and  criminal 
matters,  was  very  lucrative,  not  only  from  the  fees  exacted  for 
every  transaction  in  suits  and  trials,  but  from  the  custom  of 


1  La  Mantia,  pp.  52-4. — Franchina,  p.  188.— Portocarrero,  n.  77. 

8  Fr*E?«hina,  pp.  45-53  s  La  Mantia,  pp.  55-6. 


28  SICILY 

punishment  by  fines  for  all  delinquencies.  It  is  noteworthy  that 
in  the  discussions  which  arose,  it  was  assumed  on  all  sides  that 
the  fuero  of  the  tribunal  was  equivalent  to  immunity  for  crime, 
and  so  it  was  as  far  as  corporal  penalties  were  concerned,  but 
pecuniary  ones  were  a  profitable  substitute,  which  enured  exclu- 
sively to  the  tribunal.  I  have  not  met  with  any  trials  of  Sicilian 
officials,  but  this  was  the  custom  in  the  Peninsula  and  it  is  an 
unavoidable  assumption  that  the  example  was  followed  in  the 
island.  In  addition  to  this  was  the  influence  derivable  from  thus 
enrolling  an  army  under  the  inquisitorial  banner,  and  thus  there 
were  ample  motives  for  disregarding  the  limitations  placed  by 
the  instructions  on  the  number  of  appointments.  The  viceroy, 
Marc'  Antonio  Colonna,  in  a  letter  of  November  3,  1577,  states 
that  there  were  twenty-five  thousand  familiars  and  that  the 
inquisitors  proposed  to  increase  them  to  thirty  thousand;  they 
included,  he  says,  all  the  nobles,  the  rich  men  and  the  criminals.1 
It  was  practically  an  alliance  between  the  tribunal  on  one  side 
and  the  influential  and  the  dangerous  classes  on  the  other,  against 
the  vice-regal  government  and  the  courts,  rendering  impossible 
the  orderly  administration  of  justice  and  the  maintenance  of 
public  peace.  The  viceroys  were  involved  in  perpetual  struggles 
with  the  Holy  Office  and  were  constantly  remonstrating  with  the 
home  government,  but  to  little  effect.  An  attempt  was  made  to 
amend  the  situation  by  an  agreement,  known  as  the  Concordia 
of  Badajoz,  July  4,  1580,  which  was,  in  reality,  a  surrender  of 
the  secular  authorities  to  the  Inquisition.  In  Castile,  a  number 
of  the  more  serious  crimes  were  excepted  from  the  exemption  of 
familiars,  but  in  Sicily  they  were  entitled  to  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  tribunal  for  all  offences,  however  atrocious.  This  was  con- 
tinued by  the  Concordia,  which  provided  that,  whenever  a  case 
involving  an  official  or  familiar  should  come  before  the  viceroy, 
he  should  promptly  hand  it  over  to  the  tribunal.  The  inquisitors 
were  empowered  to  excommunicate  judges  who  interfered  with 
their  jurisdiction  and  the  judge  so  excommunicated  was  required 

1  La  Mantia,  pp.  58-9. 


CONFLICTS  OF  JURISDICTION  29 

to  present  himself  before  them,  to  beg  for  absolution  and  to  prom- 
ise obedience.  Provision  however  was  made  for  competencias, 
or  conferences  between  judges  and  inquisitors  on  disputed  ques- 
tions when,  if  they  could  not  agree,  the  matter  was  referred  to 
the  king  for  final  decision — a  process  which  usually  prolonged  it 
indefinitely.1 

The  secular  authorities  were  naturally  restive  under  this  and 
quarrels  continued.  In  1589  there  was  an  outbreak,  when  the 
Gran  Corte  undertook  to  try  a  familiar  named  Antonio  Ferrante. 
The  Inquisition  claimed  him;  the  viceroy,  the  Count  of  Alva,  was 
less  enduring  than  some  of  his  predecessors;  he  caused  the  sen- 
tence of  hanging  to  be  executed  and,  in  the  ensuing  recrimina- 
tions, he  imprisoned  the  consultors  of  the  Inquisition  and  its 
judge  of  confiscations.  Both  parties  appealed  to  Philip  II  who, 
after  examining  all  the  documents,  wrote  to  Alba,  March  29,  1590, 
strongly  reproving  him  for  bringing  such  scandal  and  discredit 
on  an  institution  so  necessary  for  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  land. 
In  future  he  must  strictly  observe  the  Concordia  and  the  judges 
of  the  Gran  Corte  must  present  themselves  individually  before 
the  inquisitors  and  obey  their  commands.  Alba  apparently  had 
argued  that  the  consultors  were  not  formally  officials,  for  in  1591 
Philip  decided  that  they  were  so  and  were  entitled  to  all  the  privi- 
leges of  that  position.2 

Philip  was  firmly  convinced  that  the  Inquisition  was  essential 
to  keep  Sicily  in  subjection,  which  accounts  for  his  upholding 
it  against  his  own  representatives,  but  his  eyes  were  somewhat 
opened  by  another  case  which  was  in  progress  at  the  same  time. 
Count  Mussumelli,  a  familiar,  was  charged  with  the  murder  of 
Giuseppe  Bajola,  fiscal  of  the  Gran  Corte;  he  was  claimed  by  the 
Inquisition  and  took  refuge  in  its  prison.  From  this  the  Count  of 
Alva  took  him  forcibly,  whereupon  the  inquisitors  excommuni- 
cated the  subordinates  concerned  in  the  act  and,  finding  this 
ineffective,  on  April  6,  1590,  they  not  only  laid  an  interdict  on 


1  Pdramo,  p.  210.— MSS.  of  Library  of  Univ.  of  Halle,  Yc,  17. 

3  MSS.  of  Royal  Library  of  Copenhagen,  214  fol.— Paramo,  p.  212. 


30  SICILY 

the  whole  city,  but  stretched  their  jurisdiction  by  prohibiting  all 
vessels  from  leaving  the  port.  This  brought  Alba  to  terms; 
Mussumelli  was  restored  to  the  inquisitorial  prison  and  the  inter- 
dict was  lifted.1  The  case  was  necessarily  carried  up  to  the  king 
and,  as  usual,  was  referred  to  a  junta  consisting  of  two  members 
each  of  the  Suprema  and  of  the  Council  of  Italy.  To  the  consulta 
which  they  in  due  course  presented,  Philip  replied,  expressing 
his  grief  at  the  atrocious  crimes  of  recent  occurrence  in  Sicily. 
That  of  the  Count  Mussumelli  was  so  aggravated  that  its  impunity 
would  render  difficult  the  enforcement  of  justice  and  he  must 
therefore  be  remitted  to  the  viceroy  and  judges  of  the  Gran  Corte. 
As  for  the  Count  of  Rocalmuto  and  the  Marquis  of  la  Rochela, 
they  were  to  be  left  to  the  Inquisition,  in  full  confidence  that 
their  punishment  would  correspond  to  the  enormity  of  their 
offences,  for  which  he  charged  the  inquisitor-general  and  Suprema. 
Moreover,  to  prevent  such  occurrences  for  the  future,  he  decreed 
that  the  crime  of  assassination  should  be  excepted  from  the  immu- 
nity enjoyed  by  familiars  and  should  not  be  made  the  subject  of 
competencias.  In  addition  to  this,  he  proceeded  to  state  that 
experience  had  shown  the  great  troubles  and  scandals  arising 
from  nobles  being  officials  and  familiars — positions  which  they 
sought,  not  to  discharge  their  duties  but  to  commit  crimes  under 
the  protection  of  the  Inquisition,  thus  creating  many  quarrels 
between  the  jurisdictions  to  the  discredit  of  both,  to  scandal  of  the 
people  and  hindrance  of  justice.  It  would  therefore  be  well  for 
the  inquisitor-general  and  Suprema  to  order  that  Sicilian  nobles 
be  no  longer  appointed  as  officials  and  familiars  and  that  existing 
appointments  be  called  in  and  revoked,  for  he  had  resolved  to 
order  the  viceroys  and  judges  to  hold  that  they  are  not  entitled 
to  the  fuero  of  the  Inquisition.  It  was  unreasonable  that  so  holy 
a  business  should  serve  as  a  cover  for  delinquents  and  evil-doers 
and  there  was  ample  experience  that  this  was  their  sole  object 
in  seeking  these  positions,  so  that  he  greatly  wondered  that  the 


Frsnchina,  p.  78. 


COMPROMISE  31 

Inquisition  should  persist  in  a  course  so  damaging  to  its  reputa- 
tion and  so  foreign  to  the  object  of  its  foundation.1 

Such  rebuke  and  such  action  could  only  have  been  elicited 
from  a  monarch  like  Philip  II  by  a  profound  conviction  of  the 
unbearable  abuses  of  inquisitorial  jurisdiction.  He  would  more 
wisely  have  followed  the  example  of  his  father  in  suspending 
wholly  that  jurisdiction,  for  the  tribunal  continued  to  exercise 
it  in  a  manner  provocative  of  continual  disturbance.  At  length, 
in  1595,  a  junta  or  conference  was  formed,  consisting  of  two 
members  of  the  Suprema,  Doctors  Juan  de  Zuniga  and  Caldas,  and 
two  regents  of  the  Gran  Corte,  Brunei  and  Escudero,  to  reach,  if 
possible,  an  agreement  that  should  lead  to  peace.  There  were 
many  discussions  and  tentative  attempts  which  finally  resulted 
in  a  consulta  presented  to  Philip  as  a  compromise  acceptable  to 
both  sides.  This  commences  by  stating  that  the  special  cases 
in  dispute  had  been  settled  or  laid  aside,  awaiting  further  docu- 
ments, and  that  for  the  future  it  had  been  agreed  that  the  Con- 
cordia  of  1580  should  be  observed  with  certain  amendments. 
The  Inquisition  was  not  to  protect  officials  or  familiars  guilty  of 
treason  against  the  viceroy  or  his  counsellors,  of  assassination,  of 
shooting  from  ambush,  of  insulting,  wounding  or  killing  any  one 
in  presence  of  judges  of  the  Gran  Corte  or  Real  Patrimonio.  It 
was  the  same  with  familiars  who  were  notaries  and  committed 
frauds  in  that  capacity,  or  were  warehousemen  and  adulterated 
commodities  stored  with  them,  or  dealers  in  provisions  who  used 
false  weights,  or  bankers  or  other  debtors  delinquent  to  the  Real 
Patrimonio,  or  delinquent  taxpayers  in  general.  Widows  of 
officials  were  to  enjoy  the  fuero  only  so  long  as  they  remained 
unmarried,  and  servants  were  only  to  be  entitled  to  it  when  they 
were  really  part  of  the  household  and  not  merely  serving  for  food 
and  wages,  concerning  which  inquisitors  were  strictly  enjoined 
not  to  commit  frauds.  In  Palermo  and  its  suburbs  the  number 
of  familiars  was  limited  to  one  hundred;  in  towns  of  sixty  hearths, 
to  one;  in  other  places  the  Suprema  was  to  decide;  they  were  to 

1  MSS.  of  Library  of  Univ.  of  Halle,  Yc,  17. 


32  SICILY 

be  prohibited  from  carrying  guns  in  the  country  and  fire-arms  of 
any  kind  in  the  cities.  If  a  judge  arrested  a  familiar  or  official, 
he  was  at  once  to  send  the  papers  in  the  case  to  the  inquisitors 
that  they  might  see  whether  it  was  excepted  or  whether  there 
should  be  a  competencia  and,  in  the  latter  case,  the  judges  were 
to  be  invited  courteously  to  meet  them  and  not  be  summoned  as 
inferiors.  The  judges,  when  excommunicated,  were  to  apply  for 
absolution  and  not  refuse  as  heretofore  to  do  so,  thus  discrediting 
inquisitorial  censures,  but  the  viceroy  was  not  to  be  excommuni- 
cated without  the  assent  of  the  inquisitor-general.  The  Regent 
Brunol  argued  earnestly  in  favor  of  including  rape  among  the 
excepted  crimes,  pointing  out  how  provocative  it  was  of  assassi- 
nation, when  the  husband  of  a  woman  thus  injured  saw  the  culprit 
walking  the  streets  unpunished,  and  he  seems  to  have  succeeded 
in  getting  it  added  to  the  scanty  list  of  those  which  the  Inquisition 
would  permit  to  be  dealt  with  in  the  secular  courts.1 

Thus  far  the  conferees  agreed,  but  they  differed  on  the  exclusion 
of  nobles  from  official  position.  The  members  of  the  Suprema 
represented  to  the  king  that,  since  he  had  ordered  their  removal, 
the  Inquisition  had  fallen  greatly  in  public  estimation  and  found 
much  difficulty  in  making  arrests;  therefore  they  asked  that 
there  might  be  thirty,  who  would  always  be  selected  from  the 
most  quiet  and  peaceable;  otherwise  the  tribunal  would  be  con- 
fined to  men  of  low  extraction,  who  could  not  make  arrests.  To 
this  the  regents  replied  that  the  maintenance  of  the  royal  order  was 
the  only  means  of  keeping  the  nobles  and  barons  obedient  to  the 
viceroy;  in  Sicily  more  than  elsewhere  this  was  necessary  and 
without  it  matters  would  be  worse  than  before,  when  the  tribunal 
excommunicated  the  viceroy  in  the  affair  of  Count  Mussumelli; 
heresy  was  unknown,  the  nobles  and  barons  had  never  made  an 
arrest  and  they  obtained  the  positions  solely  to  gain  the  privileges.2 
These  arguments  were  unanswerable  and  the  prohibition  was 
maintained.  With  the  accession  of  Philip  III  an  attempt  was 
again  made  to  have  it  repealed ;  Inquisitor  Pdramo,  in  a  letter  of 

>  MSS.  of  Library  of  Univ.  of  Halle,  Yc,  17.  »  Ibidem,  ubi  mp. 


FURTHER  AGGRESSIVENESS  33 

March  8,  1600,  to  the  new  king  described  the  condition  of  the 
tribunal  as  most  deplorable  in  consequence  of  it,  but  the  appeal 
was  unsuccessful.  Philip  contented  himself  with  secret  instruc- 
tions to  the  viceroy  to  enforce  the  cedula  of  January  18, 1535,  and 
the  Concordia  and  to  endeavor  to  come  to  some  understanding 
with  the  inquisitors.1 

So  far,  indeed,  was  the  Inquisition  from  being  oppressed,  that 
it  was  seeking  to  assert  exclusive  claim  to  the  obedience  of  its 
"subjects,"  as  though  they  were  released  in  all  things  from  the 
control  of  the  civil  authorities.  Thus,  in  1591,  the  tribunal  issued 
an  edict  condemning  all  its  "  subjects"  who  had  not  revealed  the 
amount  of  corn  possessed  by  them  or  had  sold  it  at  unlawful 
prices — evidently  referring  to  certain  measures  taken  by  the 
government,  as  was  frequently  done  in  times  of  scarcity.  The 
Viceroy  Alba  was  quick  to  recognize  this  attempt  to  supplant 
the  civil  power  and  he  stopped  the  publication  of  the  edict.  He 
was  soon  afterwards  succeeded  by  Count  Olivares,  whose  temper 
Inquisitor  Pdramo,  with  characteristic  pertinacity,  proceeded  to 
test  with  a  proclamation  of  April  23,  1592,  published  throughout 
the  island  to  sound  of  trumpet,  reciting  the  disturbance  of  public 
order  by  bands  of  robbers,  against  whom  and  all  harboring  or 
favoring  them  the  viceroy  had  issued  edicts,  wherefore  he  sum- 
moned all  those  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Inquisition  to 
abstain  from  sheltering  the  said  bandits,  under  the  penalties  pro- 
vided by  the  laws  and  of  a  thousand  ounces  applicable  to  the 
Holy  Office.  Olivares  was  no  more  disposed  than  his  predecessor 
to  admit  that  his  actions  required  inquisitorial  confirmation  and, 
on  May  30th,  he  issued  an  edict  prohibiting,  under  heavy  penalties, 
the  publication  of  the  proclamation;  if,  in  any  place,  it  had  been 
entered  on  the  records  of  the  magistrates,  the  entry  was  to  be 
erased  and  no  similar  orders  of  the  Inquisition  were  to  be  received 
in  future.  He  moreover  told  the  inquisitors  that  it  was  none  of 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  41,  fol.  258,  263.     In  his  letter  Paramo 
mentions  that  not  long  before  two  Calvinist  missionaries  had  been  sent  from 
Geneva  to  Sicily;  the  Inquisition  arrested  them  and  their  converts  and  one  of  the 
missionaries  had  been  burnt  alive,  showing  the  steadfastness  of  his  faith. 
3 


34  SICILY 

their  business  to  issue  decrees  on  this  or  any  other  matter  of 
general  policy,  but  simply  to  obey  the  laws;  that  it  had  been 
done  merely  to  enlarge  their  jurisdiction  illegally  and  that  the 
government  could  not  be  divided  into  two  heads  with  one 
body.1 

Between  conflicting  pretensions  such  as  these,  harmony  was 
impossible  and  the  conclusions  of  the  junta  of  1595  did  not  restore 
it.  Collisions  were  frequent  and  the  extremes  to  which  they  were 
sometimes  carried  are  seen  in  one  occurring  in  1602,  when  the  Gran 
Corte  prosecuted  Mariano  Agliata,  a  familiar,  for  the  murder  of 
Don  Diego  de  Zuniga  and  Don  Diego  Sandoval,  a  captain  and  a 
sergeant  of  the  royal  troops.  The  inquisitors  arrested  him  and 
claimed  jurisdiction  and,  when  the  Gran  Corte  refused  to  abandon 
the  prosecution,  they  excommunicated  the  judges.  Excommu- 
nication by  an  inquisitor  could  be  removed  only  by  the  power 
which  fulminated  it  or  by  the  pope,  but  the  viceroy,  the  Duke  of 
Feria,  persuaded  the  archbishop,  Diego  de  Haedo,  to  absolve 
the  judges,  whereupon  the  inquisitors  interdicted  him  from  per- 
forming any  functions  until  he  should  admit  that  his  absolutions 
were  invalid.  At  this  the  viceroy  lost  his  temper  and  despatched, 
August  7th,  two  companies  of  soldiers  to  the  Inquisition,  with  a 
gallows  and  the  executioner.  They  remained  in  front  of  the 
building  until  two  o'clock  in  the  morning  and  returned  on  the 
8th  in  greater  force,  erected  six  gallows,  each  with  its  hangman, 
and  stood  with  lighted  matchlocks  pointed  at  the  windows.  The 
inquisitors  were  not  daunted  by  this  impotent  display  of  force; 
they  barred  the  doors,  hoisted  the  standard  of  the  Inquisition,  with 
a  papal  flag  and  a  crucifix,  and  flung  out  of  the  windows  among  the 
troops  notices  of  excommunication.  Undeterred  by  this,  the 
Spaniards  broke  their  way  in  and,  after  some  parley,  the  inquis- 
itors promised  to  absolve  them.  Feria  had  gone  as  far  as  he 
dared  without  result  and  the  victory  remained  with  the  inquisi- 
tors, for  the  case  of  Agliata  was  surrendered  to  them,  on  then 
removing  the  interdict  on  the  archbishop  and  the  excommuni- 

1  Gervasii  Siculse  Sanctiones,  II,  329  (Panonni,  1751) 


CONFLICTS  WITH  BISHOPS  35 

cation  of  the  judges.1  To  emphasize  Feria's  defeat,  Philip  III, 
in  1603,  issued  a  general  letter  to  all  of  his  viceroys,  lauding  the 
services  of  the  Inquisition  and  ordering  them  to  give  it  all  the 
favor  and  assistance  it  might  ask  for,  and  to  maintain  intact  the 
privileges,  exemptions  and  liberties,  assured  to  its  ministers  and 
familiars,  by  law,  by  the  concordias,  by  the  royal  cedulas,  by  use 
and  custom  and  by  any  other  source.2 

As  though  these  sempiternal  conflicts  with  the  civil  authorities 
were  not  sufficiently  disturbing  to  the  public  peace,  the  Inquisi- 
tion was  involved  in  a  similar  series  with  the  bishops,  in  which  it 
did  not  fare  so  well,  entrenched  as  they  were  behind  the  canon 
law,  which  the  monarchs  could  not  set  aside.  A  portion  of  the 
officials  of  the  Holy  Office  were  clerics,  of  whose  immunity  from 
the  secular  courts  there  could  be  no  question,  but  the  bishops 
claimed,  under  divine  and  canon  law,  an  imprescriptible  right  of 
cognizance  of  their  offences,  when  these  did  not  concern  the  faith 
or  their  official  functions.  The  inquisitors  held  that  they  pos- 
sessed exclusive  jurisdiction  over  their  subordinates  and  the  con- 
flict was  waged  with  abundant  lack  of  Christian  charity,  causing 
great  popular  scandal  until,  as  we  are  told,  the  people  were  in 
the  habit  of  asking  where  was  the  God  of  the  clergy.  The  con- 
test raged  chiefly  over  the  commissioners  appointed  everywhere 
throughout  the  island,  whose  duty  it  was  to  investigate  cases  of 
heresy  in  their  districts  and  report  or,  if  necessary,  make  arrests 
and  send  the  culprits  to  Palermo  for  trial.  In  1625  the  Suprema 


1  La  Mantia,  pp.  69-70.    There  is  a  very  vivid  account  of  this  affair  in  a  letter 
to  the  Suprema  from  Pdramo  and  his  colleagues,  written  on  the  evening  of  August 
9th,  when  they  were  expecting  further  ill  treatment  by  the  viceroy,  whom  they 
characterize  in  the  most  unflattering  terms. — Bibl.  Nacional  de  Madrid,  MSS., 
Cc,  58,  p.  35. 

Pdramo,  in  a  document  of  March  8,  1600,  had  already  described  him  as  a, 
declared  enemy  of  the  Inquisition. — Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  41, 
fol.  249. 

2  Portocarrero,  op.  cit.,  n.  1. — Solorzani  de  Indiarum  Gubernatione,  Lib.  in, 
cap.  xxiv,  n.  16. — A  virtual  duplicate  of  this  letter  was  sent,  September  10,  1670, 
by  the  Queen-regent  Maria  Anna  of  Austria,  to  the  Prince  de  Ligne,  then  Viceroy 
of  Sicily.— Mongitore,  L'Atto  pubblico  di  Fede  de  1724,  p.  v  (Palermo,  1724). 


36  SICILY 

endeavored  to  effect  a  compromise,  by  designating  what  offences 
were  cognizable  by  the  bishops  exclusively,  what  by  the  inquisi- 
tors and  what  cumulatively  by  either  jurisdiction,  for  that  of  the 
bishops  could  not  be  denied  and  the  Inquisition  had  no  papal 
letters  to  show  in  support  of  its  claims.  This  seems  only  to  have 
emboldened  the  bishops  and  the  quarrels  continued.  In  1630 
Philip  IV  and  the  inquisitor-general  wrote  to  the  viceroy  and  the 
inquisitors,  enquiring  what  was  the  established  custom  in  such 
cases,  but  apparently  the  two  ecclesiastical  camps  could  not 
agree  on  terms  of  peace  and  nothing  was  done.  In  1642  the 
inquisitor,  Gonsalvo  Bravo  Grosero  submitted  to  the  Suprema 
a  long  and  learned  paper  in  which  he  describes  the  condition  of 
the  Sicilian  Inquisition  as  most  deplorable,  in  consequence  of  the 
implacable  hostility  of  the  bishops.  It  could  not  possibly  do 
without  commissioners,  for  the  inquisitors  could  not  travel  around 
to  visit  the  provinces;  the  roads  were  too  bad  and  their  salaries 
too  meagre  to  bear  the  expense,  as  they  could  not  venture  into 
the  country  without  a  guard  of  at  least  forty  men,  in  view  of  the 
robbers  and  bandits.  There  was  not  money  to  pay  the  com- 
missioners a  salary  and  their  only  inducement  to  accept  the 
office  was  to  gain  immunity  from  episcopal  jurisdiction.  As  this 
was  virtually  denied  to  them,  it  became  impossible  to  find  fitting 
clerics  to  undertake  the  duties,  so  there  were  many  vacancies  that 
could  not  be  filled. 

Grosero  evidently  did  not  pause  to  consider  the  reflection  cast 
on  the  character  of  the  clerics  thus  anxious  to  find  refuge  in  the 
Inquisition  from  the  courts  of  their  bishops,  but  the  cases  which 
he  mentions,  if  not  exaggerated,  testify  amply  to  the  virulence  of 
episcopal  vindictiveness.  Recently,  he  says,  the  tribunal  became 
involved  in  a  quarrel  with  the  Bishop  of  Syracuse  over  the  case 
of  a  familiar.  Indignant  at  its  methods,  the  bishop  indulged  in 
reprisals  on  the  unlucky  commissioner  of  Lentini,  on  a  charge  of 
incontinence;  he  was  seized  by  a  band  of  armed  clerics,  stripped 
and  carried  on  a  mule  to  prison  as  a  malefactor  and  cast  into  a 
dungeon  where  he  lay,  deprived  of  all  communication  with  his 


CONTINUED  STRIFE  37 

friends,  until  the  Bishop  of  Cefalti,  then  governor  of  the  island, 
procured  his  release,  but  his  persecution  continued  for  two  years. 
So  the  Bishop  of  Girgenti  seized  the  commissioner  of  Caltanexeda 
because  he  had,  under  orders  from  the  tribunal,  stopped  the  prose- 
cution of  a  familiar.  He  was  confined  in  a  damp,  underground 
cell  for  forty  days,  until  the  viceroy  procured  his  release,  and  his 
unwholesome  confinement  nearly  cost  him  his  life.  The  impelling 
cause  of  Grosero's  memorial  was  a  pending  case,  which  scarcely 
evokes  sympathy  with  his  complaints.  Alessandro  Turano,  com- 
missioner of  Burgio,  had  given  refuge  in  his  house  to  a  kinsman, 
a  monk  guilty  of  murder,  and  had  refused  admission  to  the  officers 
who  came  to  arrest  the  criminal.  For  this  the  Bishop  of  Girgenti 
was  prosecuting  him,  and  Grosero  appeals  to  the  Suprema  to  inter- 
vene and  put  an  end  to  such  violations  of  the  immunity  necessary 
to  enable  the  Inquisition  to  perform  its  pious  work.1  It  is  not 
likely  that  the  Suprema  succeeded  in  establishing  concord  be- 
tween the  irreconcilable  pretensions  of  the  two  ecclesiastical 
bodies,  but  the  struggle  is  worth  passing  attention  as  affording 
a  glimpse  into  the  social  conditions  of  the  period  under  such 
institutions. 

Meanwhile  the  incessant  bickering  with  the  civil  authorities 
continued  as  active  and  as  bitter  as  ever.  No  attention  was  paid 
to  the  limitations  prescribed  in  the  Concordias,  or  to  the  protests 
of  the  viceroys  until,  in  1635,  an  attempt  was  made,  in  a  new 
Concordia,  to  remedy  some  of  the  more  crying  evils  by  empowering 
the  viceroy,  in  cases  of  exceptional  gravity,  to  banish  criminal 
officials,  after'  notice  to  the  senior  inquisitor,  so  that  he  might 
appeal  to  Madrid,  and  in  these  cases  the  inquisitors  were  forbidden 
to  excommunicate  the  officers  of  justice.2  Slender  as  was  this 
concession,  the  inquisitors,  in  a  letter  of  April  26,  1652,  to  the 
Suprema,  did  not  hesitate  to  assert  that  the  exemptions  of  the 
officials  were  reduced  to  those  of  the  vilest  plebeians  and  that 


1  Biblioteca  nacional  de  Madrid,  MSS.,  D,  118,  fol.  134,  n.  47. 
3  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Legajo  1465,  fol.  35. 


38  SICILY 

their  revenue  suffered  heavily  through  the  limitation  of  their 
jurisdiction  and  the  great  reduction  in  the  number  of  those  who 
applied  for  appointments.1  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  may  believe 
the  Consulta  Magna,  drawn  up,  in  1696,  by  a  special  junta  com- 
posed of  representatives  of  all  the  royal  councils  except  the 
Suprema,  the  Sicilian  tribunal  paid  no  respect  whatever  to  the 
Concordias,  held  itself  as  wholly  independent  of  all  rules  and  en- 
forced its  arbitrary  acts  by  the  constant  abuse  of  excommunication, 
which  rendered  the  condition  of  the  island  most  deplorable.  The 
inquisitors  refused  to  meet  the  judges  in  competencias  on  disputed 
cases  and  though,  by  the  Concordia  of  1635,  such  refusal  incurred 
a  fine  of  five  hundred  ducats  for  a  first  offence  and  dismissal  for 
a  second,  yet  as  the  enforcement  of  this  required  the  issue  by  the 
Suprema  of  a  commission  to  the  Council  of  Italy,  it  was  easily 
eluded.  As  a  matter  of  course  the  suggestion  of  the  junta  was 
ineffective  that  those  oppressed  by  the  abuse  of  spiritual  censures 
should  have  the  right  of  appeal  to  the  royal  judges.2 

These  quarrels  and  the  exercise  of  its  widely  extended  temporal 
jurisdiction  by  no  means  distracted  wholly  the  tribunal  from  its 
legitimate  functions  of  preserving  the  purity  of  the  faith.  In 
1640  it  held  a  notable  auto  de  fe  in  which  one  case  is  worth  alluding 
to  as  an  illustration  of  inquisitorial  dealings  with  the  insane. 
Carlo  Tabaloro  of  Calabria  was  an  Augustinian  lay-brother,  who 
had  conceived  the  idea  that  he  was  the  Son  of  God  and  the  Mes- 
siah, Christ  having  been  merely  the  Redeemer.  He  had  written 
a  gospel  about  himself  and  framed  a  series  of  novel  religious 
observances.  Arrested  by  the  Palermo  tribunal,  in  1635,  he  had 
imagined  it  to  be  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  him  to  convert  the 
inquisitors  and  through  them  the  people.  For  five  years  the 
theologians  labored  to  disabuse  him,  but  to  no  purpose;  he  was 
condemned  as  an  obstinate  and  pertinacious  heretic  and  was  led 
forth  in  the  auto  of  1640  to  be  burnt  alive.  On  his  way  to  the  stake 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  38,  fol.  298. 

'  Consulta  Magna  de  1696  (Bibl.  national  de  Madrid,  MSS.,  Q,  4). 


ACTIVITY  39 

he  still  expected  that  torrents  of  rain  would  extinguish  the  fires,  but 
finding  himself  disappointed  and  shrinking  from  the  awful  death, 
at  the  last  moment  he  professed  conversion  and  was  mercifully 
strangled  before  the  pile  was  lighted.1  At  another  auto,  June  2, 
1647,  there  were  thirty-four  penitents  and  six  months  later  another, 
January  12,  1648,  with  thirty-seven,  followed,  December  13th  of 
the  same  year,  by  one  with  forty-three.  January  22,  1651,  there 
was  another  with  thirty-nine,  honored  moreover  with  the  presence 
of  Don  John  of  Austria,  fresh  from  the  triumph  of  suppressing 
the  Neapolitan  revolt  of  Masaniello.  In  fact,  in  a  letter  of  April 
26,  1652,  the  inquisitors  boasted  that  they  had  punished  two 
hundred  and  seven  culprits  in  public  autos,  besides  nearly  as 
many  who  had  been  despatched  privately  in  the  audience  chamber. 
This  would  show  an  average  of  about  eighty  cases  a  year,  greatly 
more  than  at  this  time  was  customary  in  Spain.  The  offences 
were  mostly  blasphemy,  bigamy  and  sorcery,  with  an  occasional 
Protestant  or  Alumbrado,  the  Judaizers  by  this  time  having 
almost  disappeared.2  The  position  of  inquisitor  was  not  wholly 
without  danger,  for  Juan  Lopez  de  Cisneros  died  of  a  wound  in 
the  forehead  inflicted  by  Fray  Diego  la  Mattina,  a  prisoner  whom 
he  was  visiting  in  his  cell  and  who  was  burnt  alive  in  the  auto  of 
March  17,  1658.3  The  activity  of  the  tribunal  must  at  times 
have  brought  in  considerable  profits  for,  in  1640,  we  happen  to 
learn  that  it  was  contributing  yearly  twenty-four  thousand  reales 
in  silver  to  the  Suprema  and  not  long  afterwards  it  was  called 
upon  to  send  five  hundred  ducats,  plata  doble,  to  that  of  Majorca, 
which  had  been  impoverished  by  a  pestilence.  Still  these  gains 
were  fluctuating  and  the  demands  on  the  tribunal  seem  to  have 
brought  it  into  financial  straits,  from  which  the  Suprema  sought 
to  relieve  it  by  an  appeal,  August  6,  1652,  to  Philip  IV,  to  grant 
it  benefices  to  the  amount  of  twenty-five  Hundred  ducats  a  year.4 


1  Alberghini,  Manuale  Qualificatorum,  p.  171  (Caesaraugustse,  1671). 

3  La  Mantia,  pp.  79-86.  3  Franchina,  pp,  100,  101. 

4  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  21,  fol,  252;  Lib.  23,  fol.  62,  119;  Lib. 
38,  fol.  245,  298, 


40  SICILY 

The  treaty  of  Utrecht,  in  1713,  gave  Sicily  to  Savoy,  but  the 
Inquisition  remained  Spanish  and  nominally  subject  to  the  Su- 
prema.  There  was,  however,  an  immediate  change  of  personnel, 
for  we  find  the  inquisitor,  Jose  de  la  Rosa  Cozio,  early  in  1714, 
taking  refuge  in  Spain  and  billeted  upon  the  tribunal  of  Valencia.1 
When,  in  1718,  Savoy  exchanged  Sicily  with  Austria  for  Sardinia, 
the  Emperor  Charles  VI  .would  not  endure  this  dependence  of 
the  tribunal  upon  a  foreign  power  and  procured,  in  1720,  from 
Clement  XI  a  brief  transferring  the  supremacy  to  Vienna.  In 
accordance,  however,  with  the  persistent  Hapsburg  claims  on  the 
crown  of  Spain,  the  Inquisition  remained  Spanish.  A  supreme 
council  for  it  was  created  in  Vienna,  with  Juan  Navarro,  Bishop 
of  Albarracin  as  chief  who,  although  resident  there  gratified 
himself  with  the  title  of  Inquisidor-general  de  Espana,  but  in  1723 
he  was  succeeded  by  Cardinal  Emeric,  Archbishop  of  Kolocz. 
Apparently  it  was  deemed  necessary  to  justify  this  elaborate 
machinery  with  a  demonstration  and,  on  April  6,  1724,  an  auto 
de  fe  was  celebrated  at  Palermo  with  great  splendor,  the  expenses 
being  defrayed  by  the  emperor.  Twenty-six  delinquents  were 
penanced,  consisting  as  usual  mostly  of  cases  of  blasphemy,  big- 
amy and  sorcery,  but  the  spectacle  would  have  been  incomplete 
without  concremation  and  two  unfortunates,  who  had  languished 
in  prison  since  1699,  were  brought  out  for  that  purpose.  They 
were  Geltruda,  a  beguine,  and  Fra  Romualdo,  a  friar,  accused  of 
Quietism  and  Molinism,  with  the  accompanying  heresies  of 
illuminism  and  impeccability.  Their  long  imprisonment,  with 
torture  and  ill-usage,  seems  to  have  turned  their  brains,  and  they 
had  been  condemned  to  relaxation  as  impenitent  in  1705  and 
1709,  but  the  sentences  had  never  been  carried  out  and  they  were 
now  brought  from  their  dungeons  and  burnt  alive*  Less  notable 


1  Archive  hist,  national,  Inquisicion  de  Valencia,  Legajo  13,  n.  2,  fol.  157. 
Cozio's  salary  in  Valencia  commenced  with  May  1st,  as  he  had  received  in  Palermo 
the  advanced  tercio  of  January  1st. 

2  La  Mantia,  p.  92. — Franchina,  p.  38. — Mongitore,  L'Atto  pubblico  di  Fede 
celebrate  a  6  Aprile,  1724  (Palermo,  1724).   This  work  of  Mongitore  was  reprinted 
in  1868,  when  the  editor  F,  Guidicini  mentions  in  the  Preface  that  on  March  9th 


UNDER  A  USTRIAN  R  ULE  41 

was  an  auto  de  fe  of  March  22,  1732,  in  which  Antonio  Canzoneri 
was  burnt  alive  as  a  contumacious  and  relapsed  heretic.1 

Although  the  zeal  of  Charles  VI  led  to  increased  activity  of 
the  tribunal  in  matters  of  faith,  he  was  little  disposed  to  tolerate 
its  abuse  of  its  temporal  jurisdiction,  which  had  led  to  so  many 
fruitless  remonstrances  under  Spanish  domination.  In  letters  of 
January  26,  1729,  to  his  viceroy  the  Count  of  Sastago,  he  recites 
the  complaints  made  to  him,  by  the  English  factory,  that  foreign 
merchants  were  exposed  to  constant  frauds  by  bankruptcies  of 
debtors  who  claimed  the  forum  of  the  Inquisition  or  of  the  Santa 
Cruzada,  where  creditors  could  get  no  justice  or  even  ascertain 
whether  the  bankruptcies  were  fictitious  or  not.  The  emperor 
therefore  orders  that  in  future  the  Concordias  shall  be  strictly 
construed  and  rigidly  adhered  to;  that  if  the  inquisitors  pro- 
ceed by  excommunication  they  shall  experience  the  effect  of  "los 
remedios  economicos"  (presumably  the  suspension  of  their  emolu- 
ments) and  that  in  future  all  mercantile  cases,  whether  civil  or 
criminal,  shall  not  be  entitled  to  the  forum  of  the  Inquisition — 
all  of  which  was  duly  proclaimed  by  the  viceroy  in  an  edict  of 
March  17th.  At  the  same  time  the  legal  functionaries  were  re- 
quired to  investigate  the  whole  subject  and  report  what  further 
measures  might  be  essential  to  prevent  interference  with  the 
course  of  justice.  The  result  of  their  labors  is  embodied  in  a 

of  that  year  a  petition  was  presented  to  the  Italian  Chamber  of  Deputies,  from  a 
Palermitan  family,  begging  the  remission  of  a  yearly  payment  to  the  royal  do- 
main, imposed  on  them  by  the  Inquisition  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  trial  of 
their  kinswoman,  the  Sister  Geltruda,  burnt  in  1724. 

It  was  probably  the  celebration  of  this  auto  that  inspired  an  anonymous  writer 
to  denounce  the  inquisitorial  procedure  in  a  little  work  entitled  "Le  prove 
praticate  nelli  tempi  presenti  dagF  Inquisitori  di  Fede  sono  manchevole."  This 
was  answered  by  Doctor  Don  Miguel  Monge,  a  professor  in  the  University  of 
Huesca  in  "La  verdadera  Practica  Apostolica  de  el  S.  Tribunal  de  la  Inquisition" 
(Palermo,  1725).  He  seems  in  this  to  consider  all  criticism  sufficiently  answered 
by  demonstrating  that  the  practices  complained  of  are  in  accordance  with  the 
papal  instructions.  The  work  illustrates  the  anomalous  position  of  the  Sicilian 
Inquisition  at  the  period.  It  is  written  by  a  Spaniard,  printed  in  both  Spanish 
and  Italian,  dated  in  Vienna  and  dedicated  to  Don  Ramon  de  Villana  Perlas,  a 
Catalan  member  of  the  Imperial  Council  of  State. 

1  Franchina,  pp.  44,  55, 


42  SICILY 

Pragmatic  Sanction  of  May  12,  1732,  consisting  of  eleven  articles, 
whereby  it  was  ordered  that  the  inquisitorial  forum  should  not 
include  exemption  from  military  service  and  taxes;  that  widows 
of  stipendiary  officials  should  enjoy  the  forum  only  during  widow- 
hood; that  the  privilege  of  bearing  arms  should  be  exercised  only 
when  in  actual  service  of  the  Inquisition;  that  commissions  as 
messengers  should  not  be  given  to  shipmasters;  nobles  holding 
fiefs  were  not  to  be  enrolled  as  familiars;  the  forum  was  not  to 
exempt  from  serving  in  onerous  public  office  and  the  use  of  excom- 
munication in  cases  of  impeding  jurisdiction  was  allowed  under 
certain  limitations.  This  latter  is  explained  by  a  decision  of 
March  6,  1734,  on  cases  in  which  the  inquisitors  had  excommu- 
nicated D.  Antonio  Crimibela,  a  judge  of  the  Gran  Corte  and  D. 
Felipe  Venuto,  capitan  de  justicia  of  Paterno,  when  it  was  ordered 
that  excommunications  could  only  be  employed  in  matters  of 
faith  and  in  cases  where  the  secular  tribunals  had  refused  the  con- 
ference preliminary  to  forming  a  competencia  to  decide  as  to  the 
jurisdiction.1 

The  conquest  of  the  Two  Sicilies  by  Charles  III,  in  1734,  led  the 
inquisitors  to  imagine  that,  under  a  Spanish  dynasty,  they  could 
reassert  their  superiority  over  the  law,  but  they  were  promptly 
undeceived.  D.  Sisto  Poidimani,  when  on  trial,  recused  them 
for  enmity  as  judges  in  his  case  and  the  Giunta  of  Presidents 
recognized  his  reasons  as  sufficient,  whereupon  Viceroy  de  Castro 
ordered  them,  October  2,  1735,  to  take  no  further  action  except 
to  appoint  some  one  to  act  in  their  place.  To  this  they  demurred 
and  de  Castro  repeated  the  order,  January  24,  1736,  and  again  on 
February  19th.  Finally,  on  April  21st  he  told  them  that  they  were 
actuated,  not  by  reason  but  by  disobedience,  and  that,  if  the  order 
was  not  promptly  obeyed,  the  senior  inquisitor  must  sail,  within 
forty-eight  hours,  for  Naples  to  render  to  the  king  an  account  of 
his  actions.2 

The  various  changes  that  had  occurred  rendered  the  position 
of  the  Sicilian  tribunal  somewhat  anomalous  and  to  remedy  this 

1  Gcrvaaii  Siculae  Sanctiones,  II,  333-50  *  Ibidem,  I,  277-81, 


SUPPRESSION  43 

the  king  obtained,  in  1738,  from  Clement  XIII  the  appointment  of 
Pietro  Galletti,  Bishop  of  Catania,  as  inquisitor-general  of  Sicily, 
with  power  to  deputize  subordinates,  who  was  followed,  in  1742, 
by  Giacomo  Bonanno,  Bishop  of  Patti,  appointed  by  Benedict 
XIV.1  Thus  the  severance  from  Spain  was  perpetuated  and  it 
was  rendered  independent.  This  seems  to  have  revived  its  aggres- 
siveness and  it  assumed  that  the  limitations  imposed  by  the 
Emperor  Charles  VI  had  become  obsolete  with  the  change  of 
sovereigns  for,  in  1739,  it  endeavored  to  intervene  in  the  bank- 
ruptcy case  of  Giuseppe  Maria  Gerardi,  who  was  entitled  to  its 
forum,  but  the  attempt  was  promptly  annulled  by  the  Viceroy 
Corsini.  A  further  blow  was  inflicted  by  a  decree  of  July  12,  1746, 
suppressing  the  system  of  competencias,  for  the  settlement  of 
conflicting  cases  of  jurisdiction,  and  substituting,  in  all  cases  not 
of  faith,  the  decision  of  the  viceroy,  who  could,  in  matters  of  grave 
importance,  refer  them  to  the  king.2  Thus  gradually  the  secular 
business  of  the  Holy  Office  was  circumscribed;  in  its  spiritual 
field  of  activity  there  were  no  more  burnings,  though  it  occasion- 
ally held  autos  de  fe,  in  which  figured  mostly  women  accused  of 
the  vulgar  arts  of  sorcery,  and  in  addition  it  interfered  with 
scholars  in  its  capacity  of  censor. 

The  enlightened  views  of  Charles  III  were  not  abandoned, 
when  he  was  summoned  to  the  throne  of  Spain  in  1759,  and  left 
that  of  Naples  to  his  young  son,  Ferdinando  IV,  then  a  child 
eight  years  of  age.  Public  opinion  in  Italy  was  rapidly  rendering 
the  Holy  Office  an  anachronism  and  Ferdinando  only  expressed 
the  general  sentiment  when,  by  a  decree  of  March  16,  1782,  he 
pronounced  its  suppression.  He  gave  as  a  reason  that  all  attempts 
had  failed  to  make  it  alter  its  vicious  system,  which  deprived  the 
accused  of  legitimate  means  of  defence;  he  restored  to  the  bishops 
their  original  jurisdiction  in  all  matters  of  faith,  but  required 
them  to  observe  the  same  procedure  as  the  secular  courts  of  justice 
and  to  submit  to  the  viceroy  for  approval  all  citations  to  appear, 

1  La  Mantia,  p.  103. — Franchina,  pp.  201,  206. 
1  Gervasii,  op.  tit.,  I,  286;  II,  352. 


44  MALTA 

all  orders  for  arrest  and  all  sentences  proposed;  moreover,  he 
appropriated  the  property  of  the  Inquisition  to  continuing  for  life 
the  salaries  of  the  officials,  with  a  provision  that,  as  these  pensions 
should  fall  in,  the  money  should  be  used  for  the  public  benefit. 
The  revenues,  in  fact,  amounted  to  ten  thousand  crowns  a  year 
and  eventually  they  served  to  found  chairs  in  mathematics  and 
experimental  physics  and  to  build  an  observatory.  When  the 
royal  officials  took  possession  of  the  Inquisition,  they  found  only 
three  prisoners  to  liberate — women  accused  of  witchcraft.  A 
few  more  had  previously  been  discharged,  in  anticipation  of  the 
suppression,  by  the  inquisitor-general,  Salvatore  Ventimiglia, 
Archbishop  of  Nicodemia.1 

In  its  career,  since  1487,  Franchina,  writing  in  1744,  boasts 
that  the  Holy  Office  had  handed  over  to  the  secular  arm  for  burn- 
ing two  hundred  and  one  living  heretics  and  apostates  and  two 
hundred  and  seventy-nine  effigies  of  the  dead  or  fugitives.2  It 
illustrates  forcibly  the  changed  spirit  of  the  age  that  Viceroy 
Caraccioli,  in  writing  to  D'Alembert  an  account  of  the  abolition, 
says  that  he  shed  tears  of  joy  in  proceeding  to  the  Inquisition 
with  the  great  dignitaries  of  State  and  Church,  when  he  caused 
the  royal  rescript  to  be  read  to  the  inquisitor  and  the  arms  of 
the  Holy  Office  to  be  erased  from  the  portal  amid  the  rejoicing  of 
the  assembled  people.3 


MALTA. 


Malta,  if  we  may  believe  Salelles,  enjoyed  the  honor  of  having 
St.  Paul  as  the  founder  of  its  Inquisition,  when  he  was  cast  ashore 
there  on  his  voyage  to  Rome.4  In  the  sixteenth  century,  however, 

1  La  Mantia,  pp.  108  sqq.  2  Franchina,  p.  43. 

» Acta  Historico-Ecclesiastica  nostri  temporis,  T.  IX,  p.  74  (Weimar,  1783). 
4  Salelles  de  Materiis  Tribunalium  Inquisit,  I,  43. 


EPISCOPAL  INQUISITION  45 

as  a  dependency  of  Sicily,  it  was  under  the  Sicilian  tribunal,  which 
maintained  an  organization  there,  under  a  commissioner.1  When, 
in  1530,  Charles  V  gave  the  island  to  the  Knights  of  St.  John,  the 
Sicilian  jurisdiction  lapsed  but,  even  without  the  Holy  Office, 
the  Church  had  efficient  machinery  for  the  suppression  of  heresy. 
In  1546  a  Frenchman  named  Gesuald  was  found  to  have  been 
for  ten  years  infecting  the  islanders  with  Calvinist  opinions,  and 
the  Aragonese  Domingo  Cubelles,  the  Bishop  of  Malta,  was  at 
no  loss  in  exercising  his  episcopal  jurisdiction.  Gesuald  was 
obstinate  in  his  faith  and  was  duly  burnt  alive ;  on  his  way  to  the 
stake  he  called  out  "Why  do  priests  hesitate  to  take  wives,  since 
it  is  lawful?"  whereupon  Cubelles  ordered  him  to  be  gagged  and  he 
perished  in  silence.  His  converts  lacked  his  stubborn  convictions 
and  were  reconciled — among  them  two  priests  who  had  secretly 
married  their  concubines,  for  which  they  were  condemned  to  wear 
the  sanbenito.  In  1553,  the  Grand  Master,  Juan  de  Omedes,  con- 
stituted three  of  the  knights  and  a  chaplain  as  an  Inquisition,  but 
there  is  no  trace  of  their  labors  and  Cubelles  continued  to  exercise 
his  episcopal  jurisdiction  in  several  cases  during  the  following 
years.  In  1560,  however,  when  a  Maltese,  named  Doctor  Pietro 
Combo,  fell  under  suspicion,  Cubelles  seems  to  have  felt  uncertain 
what  to  do  with  him  and  sent  him  in  chains  to  the  Roman  Inqui- 
sition, where  he  was  acquitted.  Cubelles  informed  the  cardinals 
that  the  Lutheran  heresy  was  spreading  in  the  island  and  this 
probably  explains  why,  by  letters  of  October  21,  1561,  the  Roman 
Inquisition,  while  recognizing  the  episcopal  jurisdiction  of  Cubel- 
les, enlarged  it  to  that  of  an  inquisitor-general,  empowering  him 
to  appoint  deputies  and  to  proceed  against  all  persons,  whether 
clerics  or  laymen,  to  try  them,  torture  them,  relax  them  or  recon- 
cile them  with  appropriate  penance.2 

In  his  zeal  for  the  effective  discharge  of  his  duties,  Cubelles 
sent  to  Palermo  for  detailed  information  as  to  the  conduct  of  the 
Inquisition  and  was  furnished  with  copies  of  the  Spanish  instruc- 
tions and  forms.  This  seems  to  have  provoked  the  Roman 


1  Llorente,  Hist,  crit.,  cap.  xm,  art.  ii,  n.  9.  '  Salelles,  I,  47-50. 


46  MALTA 

Congregation  of  the  Holy  Office,  between  which  and  the  Spanish 
there  was  perpetual  jealousy,  and  it  sent  to  Malta  a  Dominican 
to  act  as  his  assistant  and  to  direct  him.  He  was  succeeded,  both 
as  bishop  and  inquisitor,  by  Martin  Rojas  de  Portorubio,  to  whom 
in  1573  Gregory  XIII  sent  a  commission.  Apparently  it  was 
impossible  for  the  Inquisition  to  maintain  harmonious  relations 
with  the  temporal  power  and,  already  in  1574,  he  complained 
to  Rome  that  his  officials  were  beaten  and  that  the  Grand  Master, 
Jean  PEvesque  de  la  Cassiere,  threatened  to  throw  him  out  of 
the  window  if  he  came  to  the  palace.  This  created  considerable 
scandal,  but  Rome,  unlike  Spain,  was  not  accustomed  to  support 
inquisitors  through  thick  and  thin,  and  the  result  was  that,  by 
brief  of  July  3,  1574,  Gregory  revoked  his  commission  and  sent 
Dr.  Pietro  Duzzina  as  apostolic  vicar  to  conduct  the  Inquisition. 
In  thus  separating  it  from  the  episcopate  no  provision  was 
made  for  its  expenses,  but  soon  after  this  the  confiscated  prop- 
erty of  Mathieu  Faison,  a  rich  heretic  burnt  in  effigy,  yielded 
a  revenue  of  three  hundred  crowns  and,  when  Bishop  Rojas  died, 
March  19,  1577,  opportunity  was  taken  to  burden  the  see  with 
a  pension  of  six  hundred  more  for  its  benefit.1  It  was  thus  ren- 
dered permanent,  but  a  protracted  struggle  with  successive  grand- 
masters was  necessary  to  secure  for  its  officials  the  privileges 
of  the  forum  and  the  immunities  and  exemptions  which  they 
claimed.2 

Yet  the  Spanish  Inquisition  was  not  satisfied  to  be  thus  com- 
pletely superseded  by  that  of  Rome,  even  in  so  remote  and  incon- 
spicuous a  spot  as  Malta.  In  1575  Duzzina  arrested  a  man  as  a 
heretic ;  it  was  known  that  testimony  against  him  had  been  taken 
in  Sicily  and  application  for  it  was  made  to  the  inquisitors  of 
Palermo.  They  applied  for  instructions  to  the  Suprema,  which 
ordered  them  not  to  give  it  but  to  claim  the  prisoner.  The  result 
was  that  the  Maltese  tribunal  tried  him  on  what  had  occurred  on 
the  island  and  discharged  him.8  This  emphasized  its  absolute 


1  Salelles,  I,  63-62.  J  Parecer  de  Martin  Real,  ubi  sup. 

1  Uorente,  Hist,  crft.,  cap.  xvii,  art.  ii,  n.  10. 


QUAKER  MISSIONARIES  47 

separation  from  the  Spanish  Holy  Office  and  its  history  need  not 
be  further  followed  here,  except  to  allude  to  the  most  celebrated 
case  in  its  annals,  when  the  two  Quakeresses,  Katharine  Evans 
and  Sarah  Cheevers,  moved  by  the  Spirit,  went  to  Malta  on  a 
mission  of  conversion  and  suffered  an  imprisonment  of  four  years.1 


1  A  Brief  History  of  the  Voyage  of  Katharine  Evans  and  Sarah  Cheevers  to 
the  Island  of  Malta  and  their  Cruel  Sufferings  there  for  near  Four  Years.  London, 
1715. 


CHAPTEK    II. 
NAPLES. 

IN  Naples  the  Inquisition  had  been  introduced  by  Charles  of 
Anjou  after  the  battle  of  Benevento  had  acquired  for  him  the 
succession  to  the  unfortunate  Manfred.  The  house  of  Aragon, 
which  followed  that  of  Anjou,  had  permitted  its  existence,  but 
under  conditions  of  such  subjection  to  the  crown  that  it  was  for  the 
most  part  inert.  Yet  Naples  offered  an  abundant  harvest  for  the 
zealous  laborer.  The  Waldenses  from  Savoy,  who  had  settled 
and  multiplied  in  Calabria  and  Apulia,  had  obtained,  in  1497,  from 
King  Frederic,  a  confirmation  of  their  agreements  with  their 
immediate  suzerains,  the  nobles,  and  felt  secure  from  persecution.1 
Still  more  inviting  were  the  banished  Jews  and  fugitive  New 
Christians  from  Spain,  who  found  there  a  tolerably  safe  refuge. 
There  was  also  a  considerable  number  of  indigenous  Jews.  In 
the  twefth  century  Benjamin  of  Tudela  describes  flourishing 
synagogues  in  Capua,  Naples,  Salerno,  Amalfi,  Benevento,  Melfi, 
Ascoli-Satriano,  Tarento,  Bernaldo  and  Otranto,  and  these  doubt- 
less were  representatives  of  others  existing  outside  of  the  line 
of  his  wanderings.2  They  had  probably  gone  on  increasing, 
although,  in  1427,  Joanna  II  called  in  the  ruthless  St.  Giovanni 
da  Capistrano  to  suppress  their  usury  and,  in  1447,  Nicholas  V 
appointed  him  conservator  to  enforce  the  disabilities  and  humilia- 
tions prescribed  in  a  cruel  bull  which  he  had  just  issued.3  Pos- 
sibly, under  this  rigorous  treatment,  some  of  them  may  have 
sought  baptism  for,  in  1449,  we  find  Nicholas  despatching  to  Naples 
Fra  Matteo  da  Reggio  as  inquisitor  to  exterminate  the  apostate 

1  History  of  the  Inquisition  of  the  Middle  Ages,  II,  268. 
3  Itinerarium  Beniamini  Tudelens.,  pp.  21-5  (Antverpise,  1575). 
3  Wadding,  Annal.  Minorum,  T.  Ill,  Regesta,  p.  392;  aim.  1447,  n.  10. 
4  (49) 


50  NAPLES 

Judaizers,  who  were  said  to  be  numerous.1  If  we  may  believe 
Zurita,  when  Charles  VIII  of  France  made  his  transitory  conquest 
of  Naples,  in  1495,  the  Jews  were  all  compulsorily  baptized,  with 
the  usual  result  that  their  Christianity  was  only  nominal.2  Such 
unwilling  converts  of  course  called  for  inquisitorial  solicitude  but, 
when  Ferdinand  of  Spain  obtained  possession  of  the  land,  it  was 
the  fugitives  from  the  Spanish  Inquisition  that  rendered  him 
especially  desirous  of  extending  its  jurisdiction  over  his  domin- 
ions on  the  Italian  mainland. 

A  single  example  will  illustrate  this  and  also  throw  light  on  the 
resistance  which,  as  we  shall  see,  the  Neapolitans  offered  to  the 
introduction  of  the  Holy  Office  after  the  Spanish  pattern.  In 
the  inquisitorial  documents  of  the  period,  no  name  occurs  more 
frequently  than  that  of  Manuel  Esparza  de  Pantolosa,  who  was 
condemned  in  absentia  as  a  heretic,  in  Tarragona.  He  had  evi- 
dently sought  safety  in  flight,  abandoning  his  property  which 
was  confiscated  and  sold,  June  4,  1493,  for  9000  libras  to  his 
brother,  Micer  Luis  Esparza,  a  jurist  of  Valencia,  whose  final 
payment  for  it  is  dated  February  2,  1499,  when  the  inquisitor, 
Juan  de  Monasterio,  was  authorized  to  retain  a  hundred  ducats  in 
reward  for  his  labors. 

Meanwhile  Pantolosa  had  prospered  in  Naples  as  a  banker  and 
had  become  one  of  the  farmers  of  the  revenue.  As  a  condemned 
heretic,  however,  all  dealings  with  him  were  unlawful  to  Spaniards. 
It  was  difficult  to  avoid  these  in  transactions  between  Spain  and 
Naples  and,  in  February,  1499,  the  inquisitors  of  Barcelona  created 
much  scandal  by  arresting  a  number  of  merchants  for  maintaining 
business  relations  with  him,  an  excess  of  zeal  for  which  Ferdinand 
scolded  them,  while  ordering  the  release  of  the  prisoners.  Pan- 
tolosa seems  to  have  held  out  some  hopes  of  returning  and  standing 
trial,  for  a  safe-conduct  was  issued  to  him,  October  4,  1499,  good 
for  twelve  months,  during  which  he  and  his  property  were  to  be 
exempt  from  seizure,  dealings  with  him  were  permitted  and  ship- 

1  Ripoll  Bullar.  Ord.  FF.  Pr«dic.,  II,  689. 

*  Zurita,  Hist,  del  Rey  Hernando,  Lib.  v,  cap.  Ixx. 


REFUGEES  FROM  SPAIN  51 

masters  were  authorized  to  transport  him  and,  on  the  plea  that 
he  had  been  impeded,  the  safe-conduct  was  extended,  August  22, 
1500,  for  two  years.  There  was  manifest  policy  in  suspending 
the  customary  disabilities  for  a  personage  of  such  importance, 
as  appears  from  one  or  two  instances.  When,  in  the  autumn  of 
1499,  Ferdinand's  sister,  Juana,  Queen  of  Naples,  and  her  stepson, 
the  Cardinal  of  Aragon,  came  to  Spain,  they  provided  themselves 
with  bills  of  exchange  drawn  by  the  farmers  of  revenue — Panto- 
losa,  Gaspar  de  Caballeria  and  others — on  Luis  de  Santangel,  Ferdi- 
nand's escribano  de  radon,  or  privy  purse.  They  could  not  antici- 
pate any  trouble  in  a  transaction  between  officials  of  Spain  and 
Naples,  but  Santangel,  also  a  Converse,  had  reason  to  be  cautious  as 
to  his  relations  with  the  Inquisition  and  he  refused  to  honor  the  bills, 
because  the  drawers  were  fugitive  condemned  heretics,  with  whom 
he  could  have  no  dealings.  Ferdinand  was  obliged  to  confer  with 
the  inquisitors-general,  after  which  he  authorized  Santangel  to 
supply  the  necessities  of  the  royal  visitors.  Possibly  in  this  case 
the  association  with  Caballeria  neutralized  Pantolosa's  safe-con- 
duct, but  this  disturbing  element  was  absent  from  a  flagrant 
exhibition  of  inquisitorial  audacity  when,  in  1500,  Ferdinand  sent 
the  Archbishop  of  Tarragona  to  Naples  on  business  connected  with 
his  sister,  the  queen.  Requiring  money  while  there  the  archbishop 
sold  bills  of  exchange  to  Pantolosa  and,  when  they  were  presented 
in  Tarragona,  the  inquisitors,  apparently  regarding  them  as  a 
debt  due  to  a  condemned  heretic,  forbade  their  payment  and 
sequestrated  the  archiepiscopal  revenues  to  collect  the  amount. 
The  bills  were  returned  and  were  sent  back  with  a  fresh  demand 
for  payment,  when  Ferdinand  intervened  and,  by  letters  of  July 
3d,  ordered  the  inquisitors  to  remove  the  sequestration  so  that 
they  could  be  paid  and  the  archbishop's  credit  be  preserved.1  It 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  I.  An  episode  of  this  business  con- 
cerned one  Nofre  Pelayo,  a  merchant  of  Valencia,  who  was  arrested  on  the  charge 
of  concealing  some  of  Pantolosa's  property.  On  January  15,  1498,  Ferdinand 
warmly  praised  the  inquisitor  for  this  action  but  he  speedily  changed  his  mind  and, 
on  March  6th,  scolded  him  for  keeping  Pelayo  in  prison  and  refusing  to  admit 
him  to  bail.  It  seems  that  he  had  in  his  hands  two  hundred  and  fifty  ducats, 


52  NAPLES 

is  easy  to  understand  how  Ferdinand  felt  towards  the  Neapolitan 
asylum  for  condemned  Spanish  heretics  and  banished  Jews  and  how 
Naples  regarded  the  arbitrary  processes  of  the  Spanish  Holy  Office. 
When,  in  1500,  Ferdinand  had  seized  Calabria  and  Apulia,  in 
fulfilment  of  the  robber  bargain  between  him  and  Louis  XII,  he 
lost  little  time  in  turning  to  account  his  new  acquisition  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Sicilian  Holy  Office.  A  letter  of  August  7,  1501,  to 
his  representatives  recites  that  the  inquisitors  of  Sicily  say  that 
they  will  be  aided  in  their  work  by  the  testimony  of  the  New  Chris- 
tians of  Calabria,  wherefore  all  whom  they  may  designate  are  to 
be  compelled  to  give  the  evidence  required.1  When,  in  1503, 
Ferdinand  obtained  the  whole  kingdom  by  ousting  his  accomplice 
Louis,  Gonsalvo  de  Cordova,  to  facilitate  the  surrender  of  Naples, 
made  an  engagement  that  the  Spanish  Inquisition  should  not  be 
introduced,  for  its  evil  reputation  rendered  it  a  universal  object 
of  dread,  to  which  the  numerous  Spanish  refugees  had  doubtless 
largely  contributed.2  The  Neapolitans  also  desired  to  destroy 


supposed  to  belong  to  Pantolosa,  but  the  sum  was  claimed  by  Miguel  de  Fluto, 
who  luckily  was  a  kinsman  of  the  Neapolitan  ambassador;  the  latter  induced  his 
master  to  write  on  the  subject  to  Ferdinand  who,  on  March  19,  1499,  ordered 
the  sum  to  be  paid  to  the  ambassador's  order. — Ibidem. 

These  transactions  are  worth  noting  as  an  illustration  of  the  destructive 
influence  on  commerce  of  the  methods  of  confiscation. 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  I. 

*  Amabile  (H  Santo  Officio  in  Napoli,  I,  93)  assures  us  that  there  is  no  trace  of 
such  a  condition  expressed  in  the  documents,  but  undoubtedly  some  compact  of 
the  kind  must  have  been  made.  This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  when,  in  1504, 
Ferdinand  and  Isabella  resolved  to  introduce  the  Inquisition  they  formally  re- 
leased Gonsalvo  from  the  obligation,  giving  as  a  reason  that  no  Catholic  was 
required  to  observe  obligations  in  derogation  of  the  faith — "non  obstantibus  in 
praemissis  aut  aliquo  praemissorum  quibusvis  pactis,  conventionibus  aut  capitu- 
lationibus  per  vos  prsefatum  illustrem  ducem  aut  alium  quemcunque,  nomine 
nostro  vel  vestro  in  deditione  civitatis  Neapolis  aut  alias  quandocunque  factis, 
conventis  aut  juratis,  cum  ea  quae  contra  fidem  faciunt  nullo  pacto  a  Catholicis 
observanda  sunt,  quinimmo  easdem  si  tales  sunt  quae  praedictis  aliquatenus 
obviare  censeantur  cum  praesentibus  quoad  haec  revocamus,  taxamus,  annulla- 
mus  et  irritamus,  pro  cassisque,  irritis  ac  nullis  nulliusque  roboris  seu  momenti 
haberi  volumus  et  habemus,  cacteris  autem  ad  haec  non  tangentibus  in  suo  robore 
permanentibus." — Paramo,  De  Origine  Officii  S.  Inquisit.,  p.  192. 

This  is  repeated  more  concisely  in  another  personal  letter  to  Gonsalvo  of  the 
same  date.— Ibidem,  p.  193. 


PAPAL  INQ  UISITION  A  TTEMPTED  53 

the  principal  incentive  of  the  existing  Inquisition  by  a  condition 
that  confiscation  should  be  restricted  to  cases  of  high  treason, 
but  this  they  were  unable  to  secure  and  the  final  articles  allowed 
its  use  in  heresy  and  treason.1  Ferdinand's  order  of  August,  1501, 
as  to  obtaining  evidence  for  Sicily,  seems  to  have  met  with  slack 
obedience,  for  there  is  a  letter  of  November  16,  1504,  from  Gon- 
salvo  to  the  royal  officials  in  general,  reciting  that  Archbishop 
Belorado,  as  Inquisitor  of  Sicily,  had  sent  to  Reggio,  to  obtain 
certain  necessary  depositions,  but  that  the  officials  had  prevented 
it,  wherefore  he  reminds  them  of  the  royal  commands  and  imposes 
a  penalty  of  a  thousand  ducats  for  all  future  cases  of  disobedience.2 
No  sooner  was  the  conquest  of  Naples  assured  than  Ferdinand 
proceeded  to  clear  the  land  of  Judaism  by  ordering  Gonsalvo  to 
banish  all  the  Jews.  The  persecution  at  the  time  of  Charles  VIII 
had  left  few  of  them  de  serial — those  who  openly  avowed  their  faith 
by  wearing  the  prescribed  letter  Tau — and  Gonsalvo  seems  to 
have  reported  that  prosecution  of  the  secret  apostates  was  the 
only  method  practicable.  Julius  II  opportunely  set  the  example 
by  instituting  a  severe  inquisition,  under  the  Dominican  organi- 
zation at  Benevento.3  Ferdinand  regarded  with  extreme  jealousy 
all  exercise  of  papal  jurisdiction  within  his  dominions  and  to  pre- 
vent the  extension  of  this  he  naturally  had  recourse  to  the  com- 
mission of  his  inquisitor-general  which  covered  all  the  territories  of 
the  Spanish  crown.  A  secret  letter  was  drawn  up,  June  30,  1504, 
by  Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  in  conjunction  with  the  Suprema,  or 
Supreme  Council  of  the  Inquisition,  addressed  to  all  the  royal 
officials  in  Naples,  reciting  that  as  numerous  heretics  duly  burnt 

1  Amabile,  I,  101.     When  Charles  of  Anjou  introduced  the  Inquisition  he  took 
the  confiscations,  as  was  customary  in  France,  and  paid  the  expenses,  but  in  1290 
his  son,  Charles  the  Lame,  divided  the  proceeds  into  thirds,  one  for  the  fisc,  one 
for  the  Inquisition  and  one  for  the  propagation  of  the  faith,  a  rule  which  prob- 
ably became  permanent. — Hist,  of  Inquisition  of  Middle  Ages,  I,  511-12. 

2  Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII.     This  is  a  well-known  collection  of  documents 
from  the  Neapolitan  archives,  made  in  the  seventeenth  century  by  Bartolommeo 
Chioccarello,  which  has  never  been  printed.     The  eighth  volume  is  devoted  to 
the  Inquisition. 

8  Zurita,  Hist,  del  Rey  Hernando,  Lib.  v,  cap.  Ixx.     Benevento  was  a  papal 
enclave  in  Neapolitan  territory. 


54  NAPLES 

in  effigy  in  Spain  had  found  refuge  there,  the  Inquisitor-general 
Deza  had  resolved  to  extend  over  the  kingdom  the  jurisdiction  of 
Archbishop  Belorado,  Inquisitor  of  Sicily,  and  had  asked  the 
sovereigns  to  support  him  in  his  labors  of  arresting  and  punish- 
ing heretics  and  confiscating  their  property.  All  officials  were 
therefore  ordered,  under  pain  of  ten  thousand  ounces,  to  protect 
him  and  his  subordinates  and  to  do  their  bidding  as  to  arresting, 
transporting  and  punishing  the  guilty,  all  oaths  and  compacts 
to  the  contrary  notwithstanding.  At  the  same  time  a  personal 
letter  to  Gonsalvo  expressed  the  determination  of  the  sovereigns 
to  introduce  the  Inquisition,  their  founding  of  which  they  believed 
to  be  the  cause  why  God  had  favored  them  with  victories  and 
benefits.  Gonsalvo  was  warned  not  to  allow  the  suspect  to  leave 
the  kingdom  while,  to  avoid  arousing  suspicion,  Belorado  would 
come  to  Naples  as  though  on  his  way  to  Rome  and  Gonsalvo  was  to 
guard  all  ports  and  passes  through  which  the  heretics  could  escape. 
To  prepare  for  the  expected  confiscations,  the  commission  of 
Diego  de  Obregon,  receiver  of  Sicily,  was  extended  over  Naples 
and  Francisco  de  Rojas,  then  ambassador  at  Rome,  was 
instructed  to  obtain  from  the  pope  whatever  was  necessary  to 
perfect  the  functions  of  the  Neapolitan  Holy  Office.1 

Everything  thus  was  prepared  for  the  organization  of  the  Span- 
ish Inquisition  in  Naples,  but  even  Ferdinand's  resolute  will  was 
forced  to  abandon  for  the  time  the  projected  enterprise  with  its 
prospective  profits.  What  occurred  we  do  not  know;  the  histo- 
rian, to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  the  documents  in  the  matter, 
merely  says  that  Ferdinand,  in  spite  of  his  efforts,  was  prevented 
from  carrying  out  his  plans  by  difficulties  which  arose.2  We  can 
conjecture  however  that  Gonsalvo  convinced  him  of  the  impolicy 
of  provoking  a  revolt  in  his  newly  acquired  and  as  yet  unstable 
dominions.  The  Neapolitans  were  somewhat  noted  for  turbulence 
and  had  an  organization  which  afforded  a  means  of  expressing  and 
executing  the  popular  will.  From  of  old  the  citizens  were  divided 
into  six  associations,  known  as  Piazze  or  Seggi,  in  which  they  met 

1  PAramo,  pp.  191-4.  J  Pdrarno,  loc.  tit. 


NEAPOLITAN  ORGANIZATION  55 

to  discuss  public  affairs.  Of  these  five,  designated  as  Capuana, 
Nido,  Porta,  Porta  nueva  and  Montagna,  were  formed  of  the 
nobles  and  the  sixth  was  the  Seggio  del  Popolo,  divided  into 
twenty-nine  districts,  called  Ottine.  Each  piazza  elected  a  chief, 
known  as  the  Eletto,  and  these  six,  when  assembled  together, 
formed  the  Tribunale  di  San  Lorenzo,  which  thus  represented 
the  whole  population.  There  were  Piazze  in  other  cities  but  when, 
under  Charles  V,  the  national  Parliament  was  discontinued,  the 
Piazze  of  Naples  arrogated  to  themselves  its  powers  and  framed 
legislation  for  the  whole  kingdom.  A  Spanish  writer,  in  1691, 
informs  us  that  no  viceroy  could  govern  successfully  who  had  not 
dexterity  to  secure  the  favor  of  a  majority  of  the  Piazze,  for  the 
people  were  obstinate  and  tempestuous,  easy  to  excite  and  diffi- 
cult to  pacify,  and,  if  the  nobles  and  people  were  united,  God 
alone  could  find  a  remedy  to  quiet  them.1  In  the  unsettled  con- 
dition of  Italian  affairs,  to  provoke  revolt  in  such  a  community 
was  evidently  most  unwise;  there  is  no  appearance  that  Belorado 
made  his  threatened  visit,  and  when  Ferdinand  himself  came  to 
Naples,  in  1506  and  1507,  he  seems  to  have  tacitly  acquiesced  in 
the  postponement  of  his  purpose. 

The  popular  repugnance  was  wholly  directed  to  the  Spanish 
Inquisition  and  there  was  no  objection  to  the  papal  institution, 
which  had  long  been  a  matter  accepted.  In  1505  a  letter  of 
Gonsalvo  directs  the  arrest  in  Manfredonia  of  three  fugitives  from 
Benevento,  who  are  seeking  to  escape  to  Turkey ;  he  does  this,  he 
says,  at  the  request  of  the  inquisitor  and  of  the  Bishop  of  Bertinoro 
papal  commissioner.2  Evidently  there  must  have  been  active 
persecution  on  foot  in  Benevento  and,  though  the  inquisitor  is 
not  named,  he  was  probably  the  Dominican  Barnaba  Capograsso, 
whom  we  find,  in  1506,  styled  "generale  inquisitore  de  la  fede" 
when,  in  conjunction  with  the  vicar-general  of  the  archbishop 
and  the  judges  of  the  vicariate,  he  burned  three  women  for  witch- 


1  Ferrarelli,  Tiberio  Caraffa  e  la  Congiura  di  Macchia,  p.  8  (Napoli,  1884). — 
MSS.  of  Library  of  Univ.  of  Halle,  Yc,  T.  XVII. 
1  Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII. 


56  NAPLES 

craft.1  Yet  anxious  as  was  Ferdinand  for  the  extirpation  of 
heresy,  he  would  not  abate  a  jot  of  the  royal  supremacy  and  would 
allow  no  one  to  exercise  inquisitorial  functions  without  his  licence. 
The  correspondence  of  the  Count  of  Ribagorza,  who  succeeded 
Gonsalvo  as  lieutenant-general  and  viceroy  during  the  years 
1507,  1508,  and  1509,  shows  that  Fra  Barnaba  held  a  commission 
directly  from  the  king.  When  a  certain  Fra  Vincenzo  da  Fernan- 
dina  endeavored  in  Barletta  to  conduct  an  inquisition,  Ribagorza 
expressed  surprise  at  his  audacity  in  doing  so  without  exhibiting 
his  commission;  he  was  summoned  to  come  forthwith  and  submit 
it  so  that  due  action  could  be  taken  without  exposing  him  to 
ignominy.  So  minute  was  this  supervision  that,  when  Fra  Bar- 
naba reported  that  a  colleague  had  received  a  papal  brief  respect- 
ing a  certain  Lorenzo  da  Scala,  addressed  to  the  two  inquisitors 
and  the  Bishop  of  Scala,  Ribagorza  ordered  it  to  be  surrendered 
unopened  to  the  regent  of  the  royal  chancery  and  that  all  three 
addressees  should  come  to  Naples  when,  in  their  presence  and  his, 
it  should  be  opened  and  the  necessary  action  be  ordered.  From 
a  letter  of  February  24,  1508,  it  appears  that  the  old  Neapolitan 
rule  was  maintained  and  that  inquisitors  had  no  power  to  order 
arrests,  but  had  to  report  to  Ribagorza,  who  issued  the  necessary 
instructions  to  the  officials;  indeed,  a  commission  of  January  14, 
1509,  indicates  that  heretics  were  seized  and  brought  to  Naples 
before  the  viceroy,  without  the  intervention  of  the  Holy  Office. 
At  the  same  time,  when  inquisitors  were  duly  commissioned  and 
recognized,  the  authorities  were  required  to  render  them  all 
needful  assistance  and  any  impediment  thrown  in  their  way  was 
severely  reproved,  with  threats  of  condign  punishment.3 

Thus  quietly  and  by  degrees  the  old  papal  Inquisition  was 
roused  into  activity  and  was  moulded  into  an  instrument  controlled 
by  the  royal  power  even  more  directly  than  in  Spain.  Yet  this 
did  not  satisfy  Ferdinand,  who  had  never  abandoned  his  intention 
of  introducing  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  and  apparently  he  thought, 
in  1509,  that  the  Neapolitans  had  become  sufficiently  accustomed 

1  Amabile,  I,  97.  »  Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII.  (see  Appendix). 


SPANISH  INQ  UISITION  A  TTEMPTED  57 

to  his  rule  to  endure  the  innovation.  Rumors  of  his  purpose 
spread,  causing  popular  agitation,  and  Julius  II,  who  wanted  his 
aid  against  the  French  in  Northern  Italy,  earnestly  deprecated 
action  which  might  necessitate  the  recall  of  his  troops  to  put  down 
insurrection.  To  the  Spanish  ambassador  the  pope  represented 
the  danger  of  exciting  the  turbulent  population;  the  time  would 
come  when  the  Spanish  Inquisition  might  safely  be  imposed  on 
Naples,  but  so  long  as  the  French  were  in  possession  of  Genoa, 
the  king  must  be  cautious.1 

Ferdinand  was  not  to  be  diverted  from  his  course  by  such 
considerations  and,  on  August  31,  1509,  a  series  of  letters  was 
addressed  to  Naples  showing  that  the  organization  had  been 
fully  and  elaborately  prepared.  Montoro,  Bishop  of  Cefalu,  whose 
acquaintance  we  have  made  in  Sicily,  and  Doctor  Andre's  de 
Palacios,  a  layman  and  experienced  inquisitor,  were  appointed  to 
conduct  the  office,  with  a  full  complement  of  subordinates,  whose 
liberal  salaries  were  to  be  paid  out  of  the  confiscations,  showing 
that  a  plentiful  harvest  was  expected.2  Viceroy  Ribagorza  and  all 
royal  officials  and  ecclesiastics  were  instructed  to  give  them  all 


1  Zurita,  op.  cit.t  Lib.  ix,  cap.  xxiv. 

2  A  royal  cedula  of  September  3,  1509,  to  Matheo  de  Morrano,  appointed  as 
receiver,  orders  him  to  pay  the  following  salaries,  to  commence  from  the  date  of 
leaving  home  for  the  journey.     The  sums  are  in  gold  ducats : 

Ayuda 
Salary,   de  costa. 

The  Bishop  of  Cefalu,  inquisitor 300         200 

Dr.  Andres  de  Palacios,  inquisitor 300         100 

Dr.  Melchior,  judge  of  confiscations 100 

Matheo  de  Morrano,  receiver 300         150 

Joan  de  Moros,  alguazil 200  60 

Dr.  Diego  de  Bonilla,  procurador  fiscal 200          50 

Miguel  de  Asiz,  notary  of  secreto  and  court  of  confiscations      100          50 

Joan  de  Villena,  notary  of  secreto 100          50 

Gabriel  de  Fet,  notary  of  sequestrations 100 

A  gaoler 54          15 

Johan  de  Vergara,  messenger 30          10 

Juan  Vazquez,  messenger 30  10 

1814         695 

Palacios  was  paid  eight  months'  salary  in  advance  by  the  receiver  of  Barcelona. 
— Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  Ill,  fol.  1,  52. 


58  NAPLES 

necessary  support  and  assistance  under  penalty  of  ten  thousand 
ounces  and  punishment  at  the  royal  pleasure,  notwithstanding 
any  previous  compacts  or  conventions,  for  agreements  contrary 
to  the  faith  were  not  to  be  observed  by  Catholics.  On  arrival 
they  were  to  be  established  in  the  Incoronata  or,  if  they  preferred 
other  quarters,  the  occupants  were  to  be  summarily  ejected  and 
a  proper  rent  be  paid.  The  Cardinal-archbishop  of  Naples  was 
ordered  to  give  them  powers  to  act  as  his  ordinaries  and  vicars; 
a  pragmatic  sanction  was  drawn  up  for  publication,  forbidding, 
under  heavy  penalties,  the  use  of  any  papal  letters  of  absolution 
until  they  should  have  received  the  royal  assent.  The  local 
officials  were  also  written  to,  ordering  them  to  aid  the  inquisitors  in 
every  way  and  a  circular  to  the  same  effect  was  sent  to  all  the 
barons  of  the  kingdom.  As  it  was  expected  that,  as  soon  as  the 
letters  were  published,  the  heretics  would  endeavor  to  escape,  the 
viceroy  was  ordered  to  take  measures  that  none  should  be  allowed 
to  embark,  or  to  send  away  property  or  merchandise,  and  all  who 
should  attempt  it  were  to  be  delivered  forthwith  to  the  inquisi- 
tors.1 Evidently  the  matter  had  been  thoroughly  worked  out 
in  detail  and  Ferdinand  was  resolved  to  enforce  his  will.  Then 
followed,  however,  an  unexpected  delay.  Ribagorza  left  Naples, 
October  8th,  probably  resigning  or  being  removed  owing  to  his 
conviction  of  the  difficulty  of  the  task  imposed  on  him,  and  his 
successor,  Ramon  de  Cardona,  did  not  arrive  until  October  23d, 
showing  that  the  change  was  sudden  and  unexpected.  The  Bishop 
of  Cefalu,  also,  did  not  reach  Naples  until  October  18th  and, 
although  officially  received,  he  exhibited  no  commission  as  inquisi- 
tor and  took  no  action,  awaiting  his  colleague  Palacios,  whose 
coming  was  delayed  until  December  29th. 

Meanwhile  rumors  of  what  was  proposed  had  been  spreading, 
popular  excitement  had  been  growing  and  it  now  became  uncon- 
trollable. It  was  openly  declared  by  all  classes  that  the  Inqui- 
sition would  not  be  tolerated  and,  when  it  was  reported  that,  on 
a  certain  Sunday,  the  inquisitor  would  preach  the  customary 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  Ill,  fol.  2-11. 


SPANISH  INQ  UISITION  A  TTEMPTED  59 

sermon  in  the  cathedral,  an  unanimous  resolution  was  adopted, 
January  4,  1510,  that  such  an  attempt  would  be  resisted,  if  neces- 
sary by  force  of  arms.  A  delegation,  selected  as  usual  by  all  the 
Piazze,  was  sent  to  the  viceroy  and  overwhelmed  him  with  fierce 
denunciations  of  the  detested  institution  as  developed  in  Spain — 
the  tortures  and  the  burnings  inflicted  for  the  most  trivial  causes, 
the  sentences  against  the  dead  and  the  burning  of  bones,  the 
execution  of  pregnant  women,  the  disinheriting  of  children,  the 
scourging  of  naked  virgins  through  the  streets  and  the  seizure  of 
their  dowries,  the  innocent  impelled  to  flight  by  terror  and  conse- 
quently condemned  in  order  to  confiscate  their  property,  while 
their  servants  were  tortured  to  find  out  whether  anything  was 
concealed,  and  the  stories  of  sacrilege  invented  in  order  to  gratify 
rapacity.  Although  most  of  this  was  the  ordinary  inquisitorial 
practice,  it  was  sufficiently  embellished  to  show  that  the  refugee 
New  Christians  had  been  busy  in  fanning  the  excitement  which 
now  burst  upon  the  viceroy.  Every  delegate  sought  to  outdo 
his  colleagues  in  vociferously  enumerating  the  horrors  which 
justified  the  evil  reputation  of  the  dreaded  institution,  and  the 
viceroy  was  told  that  they  never  would  allow  themselves  to  be 
subjected  to  the  accusations  of  informers,  whose  names  were  con- 
cealed and  whose  perjuries  were  stimulated  by  a  share  in  the 
spoils;  the  whole  business  was  not  to  protect  religion  but  to  get 
money  and  they  would  not  be  dishonored  and  put  to  death  and 
despoiled  as  infidels  under  such  pretexts.  If  he  valued  the  peace 
of  the  realm,  he  would  prohibit  the  sermon.  Cardona  listened 
to  the  storm  of  objurgation  and,  when  it  had  exhausted  itself,  he 
replied  that  he  had  the  king's  orders  to  receive  the  inquisitors  and 
would  obey  them.  This  aroused  a  greater  uproar  than  before 
and  he  weakened  under  it.  He  retired  to  consult  the  council 
and  on  his  return  he  told  the  deputies  that  they  might  send  envoys 
to  the  king  to  expound  their  views  and  learn  his  decision;  mean- 
while he  would  prevent  the  inquisitors  from  acting  and  they  must 
preserve  the  peace. 
The  agitation  continued;  daily  assemblies  were  held  in  the 


60  NAPLES 

Seggi  and,  on  January  9th  and  10th,  a  formal  agreement  was 
drawn  up  and  executed  between  the  nobles  and  the  people,  in 
which  they  bound  themselves  to  sacrifice  life  and  property  sooner 
than  to  permit  the  introduction  of  the  Inquisition  and,  at  the 
same  time,  they  elected  Francesco  Filomarino  as  envoy  to  Ferdi- 
nand. The  next  day  a  trivial  occurrence  nearly  produced  a  seri- 
ous outbreak,  showing  how  dangerous  was  the  tension  of  popular 
feeling.  Luca  Russo,  who  was  one  of  the  most  active  agitators, 
had  an  old  quarrel,  arising  from  a  lawsuit,  with  Roberto  Boni- 
facio, the  justiciary  of  the  city;  he  chanced  to  meet  Colantonio 
Sanguigno,  a  retainer  of  Bonifacio;  words  passed  between  them 
and  Sanguigno  made  a  hostile  demonstration,  which  started  a 
rumor  that  Russo  was  slain.  The  shops  forthwith  were  closed, 
the  populace  rushed  to  arms,  shouting  ferro,  ferro!  serra,  serra! 
and  the  house  of  the  justiciary  was  besieged  by  an  enormous  mob 
thirsting  for  his  blood,  but  on  the  production  of  the  supposed 
victim  they  quietly  dispersed.  During  all  this  we  hear  nothing 
of  the  Bishop  of  Cefalu,  but  his  colleague,  Andre's  Palacios,  was 
expelled  from  one  domicile  after  another;  he  was  a  dangerous 
inmate  and  finally  found  refuge  in  the  palace  of  the  Admiral  of 
Naples,  Villamari,  Count  of  Capaccio,  where  he  lay  in  retirement 
for  some  months. 

Filomarino,  the  envoy  to  Ferdinand,  did  not  start  for  Spain 
until  April  and  the  reports  received  from  him  during  the  summer 
were  such  that  the  people  lost  hope  of  a  peaceful  solution.  Yet 
during  the  whole  of  this  anxious  time,  although  the  kingdom 
everywhere  was  united  in  support  of  the  capital,  though  all  the 
troops  in  the  land  had  been  sent  to  the  wars  in  Northern  Italy  and 
there  was  not  a  man-at-arms  left,  factions  were  hushed;  Angevines 
and  Aragonese  and  even  Spaniards  unanimously  agreed  that  they 
would  endure  the  greatest  sufferings  rather  than  consent  to  the 
Inquisition  and  perfect  internal  peace  and  quiet  were  every- 
where preserved.  This  did  not  indicate  that  agitation  had  sub- 
sided, for  peace  was  seriously  imperilled  on  September  24th,  when 
a  rumor  spread  that  royal  letters  had  been  received  ordering  the 


SPANISH  INQ  UISITION  A  TTEMPTED  61 

Inquisition  to  be  set  to  work.  Meetings  of  the  Seggi  were  held 
and  it  was  proposed  to  close  the  shops  and  ring  the  bells  to  call 
the  people  to  arms,  but  moderate  counsels  prevailed  and  a  depu- 
tation was  sent  to  the  viceroy  to  assure  him  that  they  were  ready 
to  suffer  all  things  in  preference  to  the  Inquisition.  He  expressed 
his  surprise;  he  had  no  letters  from  the  king,  to  whom  he  would 
write  earnestly  begging  him  to  desist,  and  meanwhile  he  exhorted 
them  to  abstain  from  violence.  Another  month  passed,  in  alter- 
nations of  hope  and  despair;  the  nobles  and  people  made  a  closer 
union,  in  which  they  pledged  their  lives  and  property  for  mutual 
defence  and  this  was  solemnized,  October  28th,  with  a  great 
procession  of  both  orders,  seven  thousand  in  number,  each  man 
bearing  a  lighted  torch. 

How  little  Ferdinand  at  first  thought  of  yielding  is  seen  in  a 
letter  of  March  18th  to  the  inquisitors,  acknowledging  receipt  of 
reports  from  them  and  the  viceroy;  he  was  awaiting  the  envoy 
and  meanwhile  counselled  patience  and  moderation;  they  must 
persuade  the  people  that  matters  of  faith  alone  were  concerned 
and  when  this  was  understood  the  opposition  would  subside.  He 
had  ordered  the  payment  of  four  months'  salaries  and  they  could 
rely  on  his  providing  everything.  Then,  a  few  days  later,  he 
announced  that  the  vacant  place  of  gaoler  had  been  filled  by  the 
appointment  of  the  bearer,  Francisco  Veldzquez,  to  whom  salary 
was  to  be  paid  from  the  date  of  his  departure.  If  Ferdinand  had 
had  only  the  Neapolitans  to  reckon  with  he  would  undoubtedly 
have  imposed  on  them  the  Inquisition  at  the  cost  of  a  revolt, 
but  there  were  larger  questions  involved  which  counselled  pru- 
dence. In  preparation  for  trouble  in  Naples,  he  began  to  with- 
draw his  troops  from  Verona.  Julius  II  took  the  alarm  at  this 
interference  with  his  plans  and  urged  that  the  Neapolitans  be 
pacified.  At  the  same  time,  with  an  eye  to  the  possible  revendi- 
cation  of  the  old  papal  claims  on  Naples,  he  sought  popular  favor 
by  promises  to  the  archbishop  to  revoke  the  commissions  of  the 
inquisitors  and  inhibit  the  Inquisition,  thus  creating  a  wholly 
unforeseen  factor  in  the  situation.  The  viceroy  clearly  compre- 


62  NAPLES 

hended  the  danger  of  the  position,  when  a  revolution  could  so 
readily  be  brought  about  and  the  people  would  gladly  transfer 
their  allegiance  to  the  pope  or  to  France,  thus  costing  a  new 
conquest  to  regain  the  kingdom.  It  is  doubtful  whether  he  acted 
under  positive  orders  from  Ferdinand,  or  whether  he  assumed  a 
certain  measure  of  responsibility,  stimulated  by  a  fresh  excite- 
ment arising  from  a  rumor  that  the  Inquisition  had  commenced 
operations  at  Monopoli.  However  this  may  have  been,  on  Novem- 
ber 19th  he  sent  word  to  the  popular  chiefs,  inviting  them  to  the 
Castello  Nuovo  to  hear  a  letter  from  the  king.  Five  nobles  from 
each  Seggio  were  deputed  for  the  purpose,  who  were  followed  by 
a  crowd  numbering  three  thousand.  The  viceroy  read  to  them 
two  pragmdticas,  by  which  all  Jews  and  Converses  of  Apulia  and 
Calabria,  including  those  who  had  fled  from  Spain  after  condem- 
nation- by  the  Inquisition,  were  ordered,  under  pain  of  forfeiture 
of  person  and  property,  to  leave  the  country  by  the  first  of  March, 
taking  with  them  their  belongings,  except  gold  and  silver,  the 
export  of  which  was  forbidden  by  the  laws.  From  this  the 
corollary  followed,  that  as  the  land  would  thus  be  purged  of  heresy, 
there  would  be  no  necessity  for  the  Inquisition.  Thus  the  unfor- 
tunate Hebrews  and  New  Christians  were  offered  up  as  a  sacrifice 
to  enable  the  government  to  retreat  from  an  untenable  position. 
The  news  at  first  was  received  with  general  rejoicings  and  some 
quarters  of  the  town  were  illuminated,  but  the  people  had  not 
been  taught  to  trust  their  rulers;  doubts  speedily  arose  that  it 
was  intended  to  introduce  the  Inquisition  by  stealth  and,  when  on 
November  22d  the  heralds  came  forth  to  proclaim  the  new  laws, 
they  were  mobbed  and  driven  back  before  they  could  perform  the 
duty.  The  next  day  a  delegation  waited  on  the  viceroy  and  asked 
him  to  postpone  the  proclamation  for  two  days,  during  which  they 
could  examine  the  pragmdticas.  This  was  an  assumption  of 
supervision  over  the  legislative  function  which  the  viceroy  natu- 
rally denounced  as  presumptuous,  but  the  necessity  of  satisfying 
the  people  was  supreme  and,  on  the  next  day,  the  Eletti  by  further 
insistence  secured  a  preamble  to  the  first  pragmdtica,  in  which 


FAILURE  OF  PERSECUTION  63 

the  king  was  made  to  declare  formally  that,  in  view  of  the  ancient 
religion  and  Catholic  faith  of  the  city  and  kingdom,  he  ordered  the 
Inquisition  to  be  removed,  for  the  benefit  of  all.  In  this  shape 
the  proclamation  was  made  on  November  24th,  and  on  it  was 
founded  the  claim  which,  for  more  than  two  centuries,  Naples 
persistently  made  that  exemption  from  the  Inquisition  was  one 
of  its  special  privileges.  Andre's  Palacios  departed  on  December 
3d  and  thus  the  victory  was  won  without  bloodshed,  after  a 
struggle  lasting  for  a  year.1 

Even  the  pragma"  ticas  ordering  the  expulsion  of  Jews  and  Con- 
versos  were  not  obeyed  and  the  situation  was  rendered  more 
aggravating  by  the  facilities  of  escape  from  the  Sicilian  Inquisition 
afforded  by  the  proximity  of  the  Neapolitan  territories.  In  June 
of  1513  Ferdinand  wrote  to  the  viceroy  concerning  this  ever- 
present  grievance  and  ordered  him  to  hunt  up  all  refugees  and 
send  them  back  with  their  property,  while  at  the  same  time  a 
royal  letter  to  the  alcaide  of  Reggio  rebuked  him  for  permitting 
their  transit  and  threatened  him  with  condign  punishment  for 
continued  negligence.2  That  it  continued  is  shown  by  the  escape, 

1  Tristani  Caraccioli,  Epist.  de  Inquisitione  (Muratori,  S.  R.  I.,  T.  XXII,  p.  97). 
— Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  3,  fol.  68,  74. — Amabile,  I,  101-18. — 
Zurita,  Hist,  del  Rey  Hernando,  Lib.  ix,  cap.  xxvi. — Spondani  Annal.  Eccles., 
ann.  1510,  n.  13. 

The  formula  withdrawing  the  Inquisition  was  "  Havendo  el  Rey  nostro  Signore 
cogniosciuto  la  antiqua  observancia  e  religione  de  la  fidelissima  Cita  di  napoli  et 
de  tucto  questo  regno  verso  la  santa  fe  catholica  sua  Altezza  ha  mandate  et  ordi- 
nato  levarese  la  inquisicione  da  dicta  Cita  et  de  tucto  il  regno  predicto  per  lo  bene 
vivere  universale  de  tucti;  et  ultra  questo  su  Altezza  ha  mandate  publicare  le 
infrascripte  pragmatiche,  dato  in  castello  nova,  napoli  22  novembre,  1510." — 
Amabile,  p.  118. 

In  Ferdinand's  letter  books  there  is  nothing  further  respecting  the  Neapolitan 
troubles  until  May  27,  1511,  he  writes  to  Diego  de  Obregon,  the  receiver  of  Sicily, 
that  the  Bishop  of  Cefalu  returns  there  by  his  orders  and,  in  view  of  his  sufferings 
for  the  Inquisition  his  salary  must  be  paid.  Yet  he  died  without  receiving  it  and, 
on  February  16,  1514,  Ferdinand  ordered  Obregon  to  pay  the  arrears  to  Mariano 
de  Acardo,  in  reward  for  certain  services  rendered,  but  this  was  still  unpaid  in 
January  of  the  following  year.  As  for  Andre's  Palacios,  a  cSdula  of  June  6,  1511, 
recognized  him  as  inquisitor  of  Valencia,  with  salary  dating  back  to  January  1st 
and  an  ayuda  de  costa  of  a  hundred  ducats. — Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition, 
Lib.  3,  fol.  145,  146,  280,  313. 

2  Ibidem,  Lib.  3,  fol.  238,  239, 


64  NAPLES 

from  Sicily  to  Naples,  in  the  following  September,  of  some  four 
hundred  of  these  unfortunates  (see  p.  12)  and  they  doubtless 
carried  with  them  funds  sufficient  to  close  the  eyes  of  those  whose 
duty  it  was  to  turn  them  back.  There  does  not  seem  to  have  been 
in  Italy  the  popular  abhorrence  felt  in  Spain  for  the  Hebrew  race 
or  any  desire  for  active  persecution,  but  at  the  same  time  there 
was  no  opposition  to  the  existence  of  the  Inquisition,  provided 
always  that  it  was  not  of  the  dreaded  Spanish  type.  In  December 
of  the  same  year,  1513,  the  Dominican  Barnaba,  now  styling  him- 
self papal  Inquisitor  of  Naples,  applied  to  Ferdinand,  stating  that 
in  Calabria  and  Apulia  the  New  Christians  lived  as  Jews  and  held 
their  synagogues  publicly;  he  evidently  could  have  had  no  support 
from  the  local  authorities,  for  he  solicited  the  aid  of  the  king. 
Ferdinand  promptly  replied,  December  31st,  ordering  him  to 
investigate  secretly  and,  if  he  could  catch  the  culprits  in  the  act 
he  was,  with  the  assistance  of  the  Bishop  of  Isola,  to  arrest  and 
punish  them  and  the  viceroy  and  governor  of  the  province  were 
instructed  to  lend  whatever  aid  was  necessary.  At  the  same  time 
Ferdinand  sought  to  make  this  an  entering  wedge  for  the  Spanish 
Inquisition,  for  Barnaba  was  told  to  obey  the  instructions  of 
Bishop  Mercader,  Inquisitor-general  of  Aragon,  with  whom  he 
was  put  into  communication  and  to  whom  he  reported.  He 
evidently  did  what  he  could,  in  the  absence  of  secular  support,  for 
a  letter  of  June  14,  1514,  to  a  bishop  instructs  him  to  assist  Bar- 
naba and  the  Bishop  of  Isola  who  are  about  to  visit  his  diocese 
to  punish  some  descendants  of  Jews  who  are  living  under  the 
Mosaic  Law,  but  his  efforts  were  fruitless.  When  he  applied  to 
the  viceroy  and  to  the  Governors  of  Calabria  and  Apulia  for 
aid  in  making  arrests,  they  replied  that  they  would  have  to  consult 
the  king.  Moreover  the  viceroy  reported  that  the  pragmdticas 
of  1511  were  not  enforced  because  they  were  construed  as  appli- 
cable only  to  natives  and  not  to  foreigners  such  as  Spaniards  and 
Sicilians.  All  this  stirred  Ferdinand's  indignation,  which  found 
expression  in  a  letter  of  June  15,  1514,  to  the  viceroy,  accusing 
him  and  the  regents  and  governors  of  sheltering  the  refugees, 


DES  UL  TOE  Y  PERSEC  UTION  65 

characterizing  as  absurd  the  construction  put  on  the  pragmaticas 
and  ordering  anew  that  every  assistance  should  be  given  to  Bar- 
naba  and  the  Bishop  of  Isola.  In  spite  of  all  this  there  was  a 
deplorable  slackness  on  the  part  of  the  secular  authorities — the 
spirit  of  persecution  seemed  unable  to  cross  the  Faro.  The  Nea- 
politan officials  would  not  arrest  the  Sicilian  refugees  without 
formal  requisitions  from  the  Sicilian  inquisitors,  brought  by  a 
duly  accredited  official.  From  what  we  have  seen  of  the  disorgani- 
zation of  the  Sicilian  tribunal  we  can  readily  believe  their  assertion 
that  they  had  applied  to  both  Alonso  Bernal  and  Melchor  Cervera, 
but  that  neither  had  given  the  matter  attention.  Ferdinand 
thereupon  wrote  to  Cervera  expressing  his  surprise  at  this  neglect, 
especially  as  it  was  understood  that  the  refugees  had  large  amounts 
of  property  concealed.  This  seems  to  have  produced  little  effect 
for  when,  six  months  later,  Ferdinand  scolded  Don  Francisco 
Dalagon,  Alcaide  of  Reggio,  about  the  refuge  granted  to  the  Sici- 
lian fugitives,  the  alcaide  replied  that,  if  he  had  proper  authori- 
zation he  would  seize  them  all,  whereupon  Ferdinand  wrote, 
September  7th,  to  Cervera,  ordering  him  to  send  to  Dalagon  a 
list  of  the  fugitives,  with  a  commission  for  their  arrest — an  order 
which  seems  to  have  been  as  resultless  as  its  predecessors.1 

When  Ferdinand's  restless  energy  exhausted  itself  ineffectually 
on  the  inertia  or  corruptibility  of  the  Neapolitan  authorities,  there 
was  little  chance  that,  after  his  death,  in  February,  1516,  the  busi- 
ness of  persecution  would  be  more  successfully  prosecuted.  There 
was  no  inherent  objection  to  it  and  the  old  Dominican  Inquisition 
with  its  limitations  continued  to  exist  but,  in  the  absence  of  the 
secular  support  so  essentially  necessary  to  its  success,  its  operations 
were  spasmodic  and  it  affords  but  an  occasional  manifestation  of 
activity,  of  which  few  records  have  reached  us.  The  only  in- 
stances, during  the  next  twenty  years,  which  the  industry  of 
Signer  Amabile  has  discovered,  are  those  of  Angelo  Squazzi,  in 
1521  and  of  Pirro  Loyse  Carafa,  in  1536.2  It  was  a  remarkable 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  3,  fol.  238,  239,  260,  261,  292,  295, 
316,  317,  350. 
3  Amabile,  I,  119-20. 
5 


66  NAPLES 

development  from  the  events  of  1510  that  the  secular  courts  came 
to  assume  jurisdiction  over  heresy  and  claimed  that  the  prag- 
mdtica  of  Ferdinand  deprived  the  bishops  of  cognizance  of  such 
cases.  That  an  assumption  so  subversive  of  the  recognized 
principles  of  canon  law  should  call  for  protest  was  inevitable  and, 
in  the  general  Parliament  of  1536,  the  ninth  article  set  forth  the 
grievance  that  a  lay  judge  had  gone  to  Manfredonia  and  thrown 
in  prison  several  heretics.  Complaint  was  made  to  the  viceroy, 
Pedro  of  Toledo,  of  this  invasion  of  episcopal  rights,  when  he 
ordered  the  cases  to  be  referred  to  the  Bishop  of  Biscaglie  but,  in 
spite  of  this,  the  prisoners  were  not  surrendered  and  remained  for 
two  years,  some  in  the  Castello  Nuovo  of  Naples  and  some  in  the 
castle  of  Manfredonia  and,  although  an  appeal  was  made  to  the 
pope  and  briefs  were  obtained  from  him,  these  were  not  allowed 
to  reach  the  bishop,  wherefore  the  barons  supplicated  the  emperor 
to  order  the  cases  to  be  remitted  to  the  bishop  and  to  forbid  the 
intrusion  of  the  secular  courts.1  The  affair  is  significant  of  the 
contempt  into  which  the  Inquisition,  both  episcopal  and  Domini- 
can, had  fallen.  Charles  was  in  Naples  in  1536,  when  a  letter 
from  the  Suprema  to  Secretary  Urries  alludes  to  a  previous  one 
of  February  8th,  urging  upon  the  emperor  his  duty  to  revive  the 
institution  on  the  Spanish  model  and  the  secretary  is  exhorted 
to  lose  no  opportunity  of  advancing  the  matter,  but  policy  pre- 
vailed and  nothing  was  done.2 

Still,  there  came  a  sudden  resolve  to  enforce  the  pragmatica 
of  1510,  which  seems  to  have  been  completely  ignored  hitherto 
and,  in  1540,  the  Jews  were  banished,  after  vainly  pleading  with 
Charles  V  at  Ratisbon.  Most  of  them  went  to  Turkey,  and  the 
expulsion  was  attended  with  the  misfortunes  inseparable  from 
such  compulsory  and  wholesale  expatriation.  Many  were  drowned 
and  some  were  captured  at  sea  and  carried  to  Marseilles,  where 
Francis  I  generously  set  them  free  without  ransom  and  sent  them 
to  the  Levant.  Their  absence  speedily  made  itself  felt  through 

1  Giacinto  de'  Mari,  Riflessioni in  difesa  della  Cittd  e  Regno  di  Napoli 

(MS.  penes  me). 
1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  78,  fol.  39. 


JUAN  DE  VALDES  67 

the  deprivation  of  facilities  for  borrowing  money  and,  to  supply 
the  vacancy,  the  viceroy  founded  the  Sagro  Monte  della  Pieta, 
or  public  pawnbroking  establishment.1  This  expulsion,  however, 
does  not  seem  to  indicate  a  recrudescence  of  intolerance  and, 
if  there  were  apostate  Converses  and  Judaizing  Christians,  the 
authorities  did  not  trouble  themselves  about  them.  Yet  the  time 
was  at  hand  when  a  more  threatening  heresy  would  arouse  afresh 
the  persecuting  spirit  and  lead  the  Church  to  bare  its  sharpest 
weapons. 

Lutheranism  had  not  penetrated  as  far  south  as  Naples,  but 
the  spirit  of  inquiry  and  unrest  was  in  the  air  and  a  local  centre  of 
revolt  developed  there  independently.  A  gifted  Spanish  youth, 
Juan  de  Valdes,  brought  up  in  the  court  of  Charles  V  and  a  favorite 
of  his  sovereign,  attracted  the  attention  of  the  Inquisition  and,  to 
avoid  unpleasant  consequences,  abandoned  his  native  land  in 
1529.  After  some  years  of  wandering  he  settled  in  Naples,  in  1534, 
where  he  drew  around  him  the  choicest  spirits  of  the  time,  until 
his  death  about  1540.2  Among  those  whom  he  deeply  influenced 
may  be  mentioned  Pietro  Martire  Vermigli,  Bernardino  Ochino, 
Marcantonio  Flaminio,  Pietro  Carnesecchi,  Vittoria  Colonna, 
Isabella  Manrique,  Giulia  Gonzaga  and  Costanza  d'Avalos — names 
which  reveal  to  us  how  Naples  became  a  centre  from  which  radiated 
throughout  Italy  the  reformatory  influences  of  the  age.3  Valdes 
was  not  a  follower  of  Luther  or  of  Zwingli;  rather  was  he  a  disciple 
of  Erasmus,  whose  teachings  he  developed  to  their  logical  results 
with  a  hardihood  from  which  the  scholar  of  Rotterdam  shrank, 
after  the  fierce  passions  aroused  by  the  Lutheran  movement  had 
taught  him  caution.  Though  not  driven  like  Luther,  by  disputa- 
tion and  persecution  to  deny  the  authority  of  the  Holy  See,  there 
is  an  infinite  potentiality  of  rebellion  against  the  whole  ecclesiasti- 


1  Chronicle  of  Rabbi  Joseph  ben  Joshua  ben  Meir  (Bialloblotsky's  Translation, 
II,  318-19).— Parrino,  Teatro  de'  Vicere,  I,  175  (Napoli,  1730). 

2  Caballero,  Alonso  y  Juan  de  Valdes,  pp.  182  sqq.  (Madrid,  1875). 

3  See  Karl  Benrath  in  Historisches  Taschenbuch,  1885,  p.  172;  also  his  Bernar- 
dino Ochino  von  Siena,  Leipzig,  1875. — Manzoni,  Estratto  del  Processo  di  Pietro 
Carnesecchi,  Torino,  1870. 


68  NAPLES 

cal  system  in  ValdeVs  description  of  the  false  conception  which 
men  are  taught  to  entertain  of  God,  as  a  being  sensitive  of  offence 
and  vindictive  in  punishment,  who  is  to  be  placated  by  self- 
inflicted  austerities  and  by  gifts  of  gold  and  silver  and  worldly 
wealth.1  He  was  also  largely  tinged  with  mysticism,  even  to  the 
point  of  dejamiento  or  Quietism,  the  result  possibly  of  his  inter- 
course with  Pedro  Luis  de  Alcaraz,  in  1524,  when  they  were  to- 
gether in  the  household  of  the  Marquis  of  Villena  at  Escalona — 
Alcaraz  being  the  leader  of  a  knot  of  Alumbrados,  who  was  severely 
handled  by  the  Inquisition.2  This  is  manifested  in  ValdeVs  con- 
ception of  the  kingdom  of  God,  in  which  man  renounces  the  use 
of  reason  and  abandons  himself  to  divine  inspiration.3  In  his 
little  catechism,  moreover,  there  is  a  strong  Lutheran  tendency 
in  the  doctrine  that  man  is  saved  by  faith;  there  is  no  intercessor 
but  Christ  and  the  whole  sacramental  system,  save  baptism,  is 
condemned  by  being  significantly  passed  over  in  silence.4  Still 
more  significant  is  his  classification,  in  the  Suma  de  la  predicazion 


1  Le  Cento  e  dieci  divine  Consideration}  del  S.  Giovani  Valdesso :  nelle  quali  si 
ragiona  delle  cose  piu  utili,  piu  necessarie  e  piu  perfette,  della  Christiana  profes- 
sione.  In  Basilea,  M.D.L. 

"  Ingannati  principalmente  della  superstitione  e  falsa  religione  ci  fanno  relatione 
che  Dio  &  tanto  delicate  e  sensitivo  che  per  qualunque  cosa  si  offende :  che  e 
tanto  vendicativo  che  tutte  le  offese  castiga:  che  &  tanto  crudele  che  le  castiga 
con  pena  eterna:  che  e  tanto  inhumano  che  si  gode  che  trattiamo  male  nostre 
persone,  in  fino  allo  sparger  il  nostro  propio  sangre,  il  quale  egli  ci  ha  dato :  e  che  ci 
priviamo  delle  nostre  facolta,  le  quale  egli  ci  ha  dato,  accio  che  con  esse  si  man- 
teniamo  nella  presente  vita :  che  si  gode  che  andiamo  nudi  e  scalai,  continuamente 
patendo;  che  £  vano  e  li  piacciono  li  presenti  e  che  gode  di  haver  oro  e  belli  pari- 
menti,  ed  in  somma  che  si  diletta  di  tutte  le  cose  delle  quali  un  Tiranno  si  diletta; 
e  si  gode  di  haver  da  coloro  che  li  sono  soggetti." — Consid.  xxxvu. 

This  edition  of  Basle,  1550,  is  the  original  from  which  the  numerous  translations 
have  been  made.  For  the  bibliography,  see  B6hmer,  Bibliotheca  Wiffeniana, 
I,  124-29  (Strassburg,  1874).  Also,  Wiffen  and  Betts,  "Life  and  Writings  of 
Juan  de  ValdeV'  London,  1865. 

Antonio  Caracciolo  styles  Valde"s  "capo  e  maestro"  of  the  Neapolitan  heretics, 
who  gave  the  Roman  Inquisition  early  occasion  to  demonstrate  its  usefulness. 

1  Manuel  Serrano  y  Sanz  (Revista  de  Archives  etc.,  Febrero,  1903,  p.  129). 

1  "  Con  questa  risolutione  condanna  1'uomo  il  giudicio  della  prudentia  e  della 
ragione  humana  e  renuncia  il  suo  lume  naturale  ed  entra  nel  regno  di  Dio,  remetten- 
dosi  al  reggimento  ed  al  governo  di  Dio."— Ibidem,  Consid.  xxv. 

4  Lac  Spirituale  Johannis  de  Vald6s.    Ed.  Koldewey,  Heilbronn,  1863. 


HERETICAL  DEVELOPMENT  69 

Cristiana,  of  those  who  rely  on  vain  ceremonial  observances,  with 
the  worldly  and  wicked,  as  fit  only  to  be  ejected  from  the  Church 
of  Christ.1 

All  these  were  dangerous  doctrines,  even  when  merely  discussed 
in  the  little  circle  of  bright  intelligences  which  Valdes  drew  around 
him.  They  did  not,  moreover,  lack  public  exposition  in  a  guarded 
way.  Bernardino  Ochino,  the  General  Minister  of  the  Capuchins, 
was  reckoned  the  most  eloquent  preacher  in  Italy.  In  1536  he 
visited  Naples,  where  he  came  in  contact  with  Valdes  and  preached 
the  Lenten  sermons  with  such  success  that  he  emptied  all  the 
other  churches.  On  February  4th  of  the  same  year  Charles  V, 
then  at  Naples,  issued  an  edict  forbidding,  under  pain  of  death  and 
confiscation,  any  one  from  holding  intercourse  with  Lutherans 
and,  on  his  departure,  he  impressed  on  Pedro  de  Toledo,  the 
viceroy,  the  supreme  importance  of  preventing  the  introduction  of 
heresy.  Envious  friars  accused  Ochino  of  disseminating  errors  in 
his  sermons  and  Toledo  ordered  him  to  cease  preaching  until  he 
should  express  himself  clearly  in  the  pulpit  as  to  the  errors  im- 
puted to  him,  but  he  defended  himself  so  skilfully  that  he  was 
allowed  to  continue  and,  on  his  departure,  he  left  numerous  disci- 
ples. Three  years  later  he  returned  and  made  a  similar  impression, 
veiling  his  heretical  tendencies  with  such  dexterity  that  they 
passed  without  reprehension.  Yet  the  seed  had  been  sown;  it 
was  a  time  when  theological  questions  were  matters  of  universal 
interest  and  soon  the  city  was  full  of  men  of  all  ranks  who  were 
discussing  the  Pauline  Epistles  and  debating  over  difficult  texts. 
No  good  could  come  of  such  inquiries  by  the  unlearned  and  the 
viceroy  felt  that  some  action  was  necessary.2  With  the  year  1542 
came  a  sort  of  crisis  in  the  religious  movement,  not  only  of  Naples 


1  Trataditos  de  Juan  de  Valdes,  p.  179  (Bonn,  1880). 

The  germ  of  much  of  this  tract  may  be  found  in  the  Militia  Christiana  Enchi- 
ridion, Canon  5,  in  which  Erasmus  dwells  on  the  worthlessness  of  external  obser- 
vances and  stigmatizes  the  importance  attached  to  them  as  a  kind  of  new  Judaism. 
Yet  the  Enchiridion  was  repeatedly  reprinted  after  its  first  appearance,  in  1502, 
and  was  approved  by  Adrian  of  Utrecht,  subsequently  Adrian  VI. 

2  Giannone,  Istoria  civile  del  Regno  di  Napoli,  Lib.  xxu,  cap.  v,  §  1  (Hay a, 
1753). 


70  NAPLES 

but  of  Italy.  The  Archbishops  of  Naples,  who  were  customarily 
cardinals  residing  in  Rome,  had  long  neglected  the  moral  and 
spiritual  condition  of  their  see  but,  in  that  year,  the  archbishop- 
cardinal,  Francesco  Carafa,  conducted  a  visitation  there — the 
first  for  many  years — and  doubtless  found  much  cause  for  dis- 
quietude.1 In  that  same  year  also,  by  the  bull  Licet  ab  initio} 
July  21st,  Paul  III  reorganized  the  papal  Inquisition,  placed  it 
under  the  conduct  of  a  congregation  of  six  cardinals,  and  gave  it 
the  form  of  which  the  terrible  efficiency  was  so  thoroughly  demon- 
strated during  the  second  half  of  the  century.2  In  September 
of  that  year,  moreover,  Ochino  and  Vermigli  threw  off  all  disguise 
and  openly  embraced  Protestantism.  This  naturally  cast  sus- 
picion on  their  admirers  and  the  viceroy  commenced  a  persecution; 
preachers  were  set  to  work  to  controvert  the  heretical  doctrines; 
an  edict  was  issued  requiring  the  surrender  of  heretical  books,  of 
which  large  numbers  were  collected  and  solemnly  burnt,  and  a 
pragm£tica  of  October  15,  1544,  established  a  censorship  of  the 
press.  Finally,  Toledo  wrote  to  the  emperor  that  sterner  measures 
were  necessary  to  check  the  evil  and  Charles  ordered  him  to  intro- 
duce the  Inquisition  as  cautiously  as  possible.3 

It  seems  to  have  been  recognized  as  useless  to  endeavor  to  estab- 
lish the  Spanish  Inquisition  and  Charles  was  not  as  firmly  attached 
to  that  institution  as  his  grandfather  Ferdinand  had  been,  but  it 
was  hoped  that,  by  dexterous  management,  the  way  might  be 
opened  to  bring  in  the  papal  Holy  Office.4  Towards  the  end  of 


1  Chioccarelli  Antistitum  Neapol.  Eccles.  Catalogus,  p.  321  (Neapoli,  1642). 
On  the  death  of  Carafa  in  1544,  Paul  III  gave  the  see  to  his  own  nephew, 

Rainuccio  Farnese,  a  boy  of  fifteen.  It  was  then  administered  through  vicars, 
the  one  at  the  time  of  the  troubles  of  1547  being  Fabio  Mirto,  Bishop  of  Cajazzo. — 
Ibidem,  p.  326. 

2  Bullar  Roman.  I,  762. 

1  Amabile,  I,  193-6.  It  would  seem  that,  at  this  time,  the  Holy  See  claimed 
inquisitorial  jurisdiction  over  Naples,  for  a  papal  brief  of  June  2,  1544  orders  the 
viceroy  to  arrest  and  send  under  sure  guard  to  Rome,  Vespasiano  di  Agnone,  a 
wandering  Franciscan  friar,  guilty  of  sacrilege  and  other  enormous  crimes. — 
Fontana,  Documenti  Vaticani,  p.  131  (Roma,  1892). 

4  Antonio  Caracciolo,  in  his  MS.  life  of  Paul  IV,  of  which  an  extract  is  printed 
by  Bernino  (Historia  di  tutte  1'Heresie,  IV,  496)  informs  us  that  Cardinal  Gio- 


TENTATIVE  INQUISITION  71 

1546  Toledo  wrote  to  his  brother,  the  Cardinal  of  San  Sisto,  who 
was  one  of  the  six  members  of  the  Congregation,  expressing  his 
desire  to  introduce  the  Inquisition  and  his  dread  of  the  consequen- 
ces, for  the  very  name  was  an  abomination  to  all,  from  the  highest 
to  the  lowest,  and  he  feared  that  it  might  lead  to  a  successful 
revolution.  To  encompass  the  object,  it  was  finally  resolved  to 
procure  from  the  pope  a  commission  for  an  inquisitor  against 
heresy  which  was  prevalent  among  the  clergy,  both  regular  and 
secular.  The  required  commission  was  issued,  in  February,  1547, 
to  the  prior  and  the  lector  of  the  Dominican  convent  of  Santa 
Caterina;  Toledo  did  not  personally  grant  the  exequatur  for  it 
but  caused  this  to  be  done  by  the  regents  of  the  Consiglio  Colla- 
terale,  but  this  precaution  and  the  profound  secrecy  observed  were 
useless.  Rumors  spread  among  the  people  that  orders  had  been 
received  from  the  cardinals  to  proceed  against  regular  and  secular 
clerks;  the  old  animosity  against  anything  but  the  episcopal 
Inquisition  at  once  flamed  up  and  deputies  were  sent  to  the  viceroy 
to  beg  him  not  to  grant  the  exequatur.  He  assured  them  that 
he  wondered  himself  at  the  fact;  he  had  written  to  the  pope  that 
it  was  not  Charles's  will  or  intention  that  the  Inquisition  should  be 
introduced  and  that  meanwhile  he  had  not  granted  the  exequatur. 
Little  faith  was  placed  in  his  statements  and  the  general  belief 
was  that  Paul  III  was  eager  to  create  strife  in  Naples  in  order  to 
give  the  emperor  occupation  there  and  check  his  growing  ascend- 
ency. It  is  said  that  he  actually  sent  two  inquisitors  but,  if  so, 
they  never  dared  to  show  themselves,  for  there  is  no  allusion  to 
them  in  the  detailed  accounts  of  the  ensuing  troubles. 

To  carry  out  the  plot,  action  was  commenced  in  a  tentative 
way  by  the  archiepiscopal  vicar  affixing  at  the  door  of  his  palace 
an  edict  forbidding  the  discussion  of  religion  by  laymen  and  an- 
nouncing that  he  would  proceed  by  inquisition  to  examine  into 
the  beliefs  held  by  the  clergy.  The  very  word  inquisition  was 


vanni  Piero  Carafa,  the  head  of  the  Roman  Inquisition  and  afterwards  Paul  IV, 
did  not  want  the  Spanish  Inquisition  introduced  in  Naples  because  it  was  more 
subject  to  the  crown  than  to  the  Holy  See  and  the  king  took  the  confiscations. 


72  NAPLES 

sufficient  to  inflame  the  people;  cries  of  serra,  serra!  were  heard 
and  the  aspect  of  affairs  was  so  alarming  that  the  vicar  went  into 
hiding  and  the  edict  was  removed.  The  Piazze  of  the  nobles  were 
assembled  and  elected  deputies  charged  with  enforcing  the  obser- 
vance of  the  capitoli,  or  liberties  of  the  city.  The  Piazza  del 
Popolo  was  crippled,  for  the  viceroy  some  months  previously,  in 
preparation  for  the  struggle,  had  dismissed  the  Eletto  and  re- 
placed him  with  Domenico  Terracina,  a  creature  of  his  own,  who 
did  not  assemble  his  Piazza  but  appointed  the  deputies  himself. 
Then,  on  Palm  Sunday  (April  3d),  Toledo  sent  for  Terracina  and 
the  heads  of  the  Ottine  and  charged  them  to  see  that  those  guilty 
of  the  agitation  were  punished  but,  in  place  of  doing  this  the  Piazze 
assembled  and  sent  to  him  deputies  who  boldly  represented  the 
universal  abhorrence  felt  for  the  Inquisition  which  gave  such 
facilities  for  false  witness  that  it  would  ruin  the  city  and  kingdom, 
and  they  expressed  the  universal  suspicion  felt  that  the  edict 
portended  its  introduction.  The  viceroy  soothed  them  with  the 
assurance  that  the  emperor  had  no  such  intention;  as  for  himself, 
if  the  emperor  should  attempt  it,  he  would  tire  him  out  with 
supplications  to  desist  and,  if  unsuccessful,  would  resign  his  post 
and  leave  the  city.  But,  as  there  were  people  who  talked  about 
religion  without  understanding,  it  was  necessary  that  they  should 
be  punished  according  to  the  canons  by  the  ordinary  jurisdiction. 
This  answer  satisfied  the  majority,  but  still  there  were  some  who 
regarded  with  anxiety  the  implied  threat  conveyed  in  the  last 
phrase. 

Then,  on  May  llth,  the  patience  of  the  people  was  further  tested 
by  another  edict  affixed  on  the  archiepiscopal  doors,  which  hinted 
more  clearly  at  the  Inquisition.  At  once  the  city  rose,  with  cries 
of  armi,  armi!  serra,  serra!  The  edict  was  torn  down;  Terracina 
was  compelled  against  his  will  to  convene  the  Piazza  del  Popolo, 
where  he  and  his  subordinates  were  promptly  dismissed  from  office 
and  replaced  with  men  who  could  be  relied  upon.  The  ejected 
officials  could  scarce  show  themselves  in  the  streets  and  three  of 
them  were  only  saved  from  popular  vengeance  by  taking  sane- 


TUMULT  OF  1547  73 

tuary.  The  viceroy  came  from  his  winter  residence  at  Pozzuoli 
breathing  vengeance.  He  garrisoned  the  Castello  Nuovo  with  three 
thousand  Spanish  troops  and  ordered  the  popular  leaders  to  be 
prosecuted.  By  a  curious  coincidence,  one  of  these  was  Tommaso 
Aniello,  whose  homonym,  a  century  later,  led  the  revolt  of  1647. 
He  it  was  who  had  torn  down  the  edict  and  forced  Terracina  to 
assemble  the  Piazza.  He  was  summoned  to  appear  in  court,  but 
he  came  accompanied  with  so  great  a  crowd,  under  the  command 
of  Cesare  Mormile,  that  the  judges  were  afraid  to  proceed  and  when 
the  people  seized  Terracina's  children  as  hostages,  Aniello  was 
discharged.  Then  Mormile  was  cited  and  went  accompanied  by 
forty  men,  armed  under  their  garments  and  carrying  papers  like 
pleaders;  the  presiding  judge  was  informed  of  this  and  dismissed 
the  case. 

Finding  legal  measures  useless  the  viceroy  adopted  severer 
methods.  On  May  16th  the  garrison  made  a  sortie  as  far  as  the 
Rua  Castillana,  firing  houses  and  slaying  without  distinction  of 
age  or  sex.  The  bells  of  San  Lorenzo  tolled  to  arms;  shops  were 
closed  and  the  people  rushed  to  the  castle,  where  they  found  the 
Spaniards  drawn  up  in  battle  array.  Blinded  with  rage,  they 
flung  themselves  on  the  troops  and  lost  some  two  hundred  and 
fifty  men  uselessly,  while  the  cannon  from  the  castle  bombarded 
the  city.  Angry  recrimination  and  threats  followed;  the  citizens 
determined  to  arm  the  city,  not  for  rebellion,  as  they  asserted,  but 
to  preserve  it  for  the  emperor.  Throughout  the  whole  of  this 
unhappy  business,  they  were  strenuously  eager  to  demonstrate 
their  loyalty  and,  when  the  news  came  of  Charles's  victory  over 
the  German  Protestants  at  Muhlberg,  April  24th,  the  city  mani- 
fested its  rejoicing  by  an  illumination  for  three  nights.  So  when, 
on  May  22d,  the  viceroy  ordered  another  sortie,  in  which  there 
was  considerable  slaughter,  the  citizens  hoisted  on  San  Lorenzo  a 
banner  with  the  imperial  arms  and  their  war-cry  was  "Imperio  e 
Spagna."  They  raised  some  troops  and  placed  them  under  the 
command  of  Gianfrancesco  and  Pasquale  Caracciolo  and  Cesare 
Mormile,  but  it  was  difficult  to  form  a  standing  army,  owing  to 


74  NAPLES 

the  question  of  pay,  as  the  money  had  to  be  raised  by  voluntary 
subscription. 

Bad  as  was  the  situation,  it  was  embittered  when  some  catch- 
poles  of  the  Vicariat  arrested  a  man  for  debt.  On  the  way  to 
prison  he  resisted  and  called  for  aid;  three  young  nobles  stopped 
to  enquire  the  cause  and,  during  the  parley,  the  prisoner  escaped. 
This  enraged  Toledo,  who  had  the  youths  arrested  at  night  and 
condemned  with  scarce  a  pretext  of  trial.  On  May  24th  they 
were  brought  out  on  the  bridge  in  front  of  the  Castello  Nuovo, 
where  their  throats  were  cut  by  a  slave  and  the  corpses  were 
left  in  blood  and  mud,  with  a  placard  prohibiting  their  removal. 
This  gratuitous  cruelty  inflamed  the  people  almost  to  madness; 
houses  and  shops  were  closed,  arms  were  seized  and  crowds 
rushed  through  the  streets,  threatening  they  scarce  knew 
what.  To  manifest  his  contempt  for  the  populace,  Toledo  rode 
quietly  through  the  town,  where  he  would  infallibly  have  been 
shot  had  not  Cesare  Mormile,  the  Prior  of  Bari  and  others  of  the 
popular  leaders  earnestly  dissuaded  reprisals.  Meetings  were 
held  in  which  the  nobles  and  people  formally  united  for  the 
common  defence,  which  was  always  regarded  as  a  most 
threatening  portent  for  the  sovereign,  and  they  resolved  to  send 
envoys  to  the  emperor,  for  which  office  they  selected  the  Prince 
of  Salerno,  the  greatest  noble  of  the  land,  and  Placido  di  Sangro, 
a  gentleman  of  high  quality.  Toledo  summoned  the  envoys 
and  told  them  that,  if  their  mission  concerned  the  Inquisition, 
it  was  superfluous,  for  he  would  pledge  himself  within  two 
months  to  have  a  letter  from  the  emperor  declaring  that  nothing 
more  should  be  done  about  it;  if  it  was  about  the  Capitoli, 
he  could  assure  them  that  any  infraction  of  the  city's  privileges 
would  be  duly  punished;  if  it  was  to  complain  of  him,  they  were 
welcome  to  go.  The  envoys  were  too  well  pleased  with  their 
appointment  to  accept  his  offer  and  wait  two  months  for  its  ful- 
filment; the  people  suspected  the  viceroy  of  trickery  and  the 
envoys  set  out.  Six  days  later  they  were  followed  by  the  Mar- 
quis della  Valle,  sent  by  the  viceroy  to  counteract  their  mission; 


TUMULT  OF  1547  75 

the  prince  dallied  in  Rome  with  the  cardinals,  so  that  della  Valle 
reached  the  court  before  him  and  gained  the  ear  of  the  emperor. 

Meanwhile  crowds  of  exiles  and  adventurers,  under  chosen 
leaders,  came  flocking  into  the  city  and  a  guerrilla  warfare  was 
organized  against  the  Spaniards,  who  had  advanced  from  house 
to  house  up  to  the  Cancellaria  vecchia,  making  loop-holes  in  the 
walls  and  shooting  everyone  within  range.  With  the  aid  of  these 
reinforcements  the  Spaniards  were  gradually  driven  back  to  the 
Incoronata.  On  the  other  hand  Antonio  Doria  came  with  his 
galleys,  bringing  a  large  force  of  Spanish  troops.  Of  course  the 
courts  were  closed  and  a  state  of  virtual  anarchy  might  be  ex- 
pected, yet  the  chronicler  tells  us  that  four  things  were  remark- 
able. First,  there  were  no  homicides,  assaults,  or  other  crimes. 
Second,  although  there  was  no  government  of  the  city,  yet  food 
and  wine  were  abundant  and  cheap  and  no  fraud  or  violence  was 
committed  on  those  who  came  with  provisions.  Third,  although 
there  were  great  numbers  of  exiles  or  bandits,  with  their  chiefs, 
some  of  them  bitterly  hostile  towards  each  other,  there  was  no 
quarrelling  or  treachery;  on  one  occasion  two  mortal  enemies 
met,  each  at  the  head  of  his  band  and  a  fight  was  expected,  but 
one  said  "Camillo,  this  is  not  the  time  to  settle  our  affair,"  to 
which  the  other  replied  " Certainly;  let  us  fight  the  common 
enemy;  there  will  be  ample  time  afterwards  for  our  matter." 
Fourth,  the  prison  of  the  Vicaria  was  full  of  prisoners,  some  con- 
demned to  death  and  others  held  for  debt,  but  no  attempt  was 
made  to  rescue  them  and  food  was  sent  to  them  -as  usual  by 
women  and  children.  Evidently  the  people  felt  that  they  were 
fighting  for  their  liberties  and  would  not  allow  their  cause  to  be 
compromised  by  common  lawlessness. 

At  length  Toledo's  preparations  for  a  decisive  stroke  were  com- 
pleted and,  on  July  22d,  a  sortie  was  made  in  force,  while  the 
guns  of  the  fortresses  and  galleys  bombarded  the  city.  There  was 
much  slaughter  and  some  four  hundred  houses  were  burnt,  whose 
ruins  blockaded  the  streets.  Desultory  fighting  continued  for 
some  days  and  then  a  truce  was  agreed  upon  until  the  envoys 


76  NAPLES 

should  return.  On  August  7th  came  Placido  di  Sangro,  the  bearer 
of  a  simple  order,  signed  by  Secretary  Vargas,  to  the  effect  that 
the  Prince  of  Salerno  should  remain  in  the  court,  while  he  should 
return  and  tell  the  people  of  Naples  to  lay  down  their  arms  and 
obey  the  viceroy.  This  cruel  disappointment  came  near  produc- 
ing a  violent  outbreak,  but  the  Prior  of  Bari  succeeded  in  quieting 
the  people  and  persuading  them  to  obey  the  emperor.  The  next 
day,  by  order  of  the  Eletti,  a  huge  collection  of  arms  was  made, 
loaded  on  wagons  and  carried  to  the  viceroy.  Then  the  tribunals 
were  opened  and  every  one  returned  to  his  private  business.  On 
August  12th  the  viceroy  summoned  the  Eletti  and  read  to  them 
a  royal  indult,  which  purported  to  be  granted  at  his  request, 
pardoning  the  people  for  their  revolt,  except  those  already  con- 
demned and  seventeen  other  specified  persons.  Most  of  those 
deeply  compromised  had,  however,  already  sought  safety  in  flight. 

This  doubtful  mercy  did  not  amount  to  much.  A  bishop  came, 
commissioned  by  the  emperor,  to  try  the  city  for  its  misdeeds 
when,  as  we  are  told,  through  the  procurement  of  the  viceroy, 
witnesses  were  found  to  swear  that  the  cry  of  Francia,  Francia! 
was  often  raised.  Whether  this  was  true  or  not,  the  letters  of 
Diego  Hurtado  de  Mendoza,  imperial  ambassador  at  Rome,  show 
that  active  negotiations  had  been  carried  on  with  both  France  and 
the  pope,  and  the  sovereignty  of  Naples  had  even  been  offered  to 
Cardinal  Farnese,  the  grandson  of  the  latter.  Mendoza  evidently 
regarded  Paul  III  as  ready  to  take  advantage  of  the  situation  if 
occasion  offered  and,  when  the  revolt  was  suppressed,  he  mentions 
that  the  fugitives  received  a  warm  welcome  in  Rome.  It  is  not 
surprising  therefore  that  the  decision  of  the  episcopal  commis- 
sioner was  adverse  to  the  city,  containing,  among  other  things, 
a  fine  of  a  hundred  thousand  ducats  for  ringing  the  bells  as  a  call 
to  arms. 

The  viceroy,  moreover,  by  no  means  confined  himself  to  the 
persons  excepted  from  pardon,  but  threw  into  prison  all  the  leaders 
whom  he  could  seize.  He  had  already  published  a  considerable 
list  of  those  excluded  and  the  seventeen  also  grew  to  fifty-six,  of 


TUMULT  OF  1547  77 

whom  twenty-six  were  condemned  to  death,  although  it  does  not 
appear  that  any  were  actually  executed,  and  the  prisoners  were 
gradually  liberated,  twenty-four  at  one  time,  four  at  another  and 
all  the  rest  in  1553.  Among  them  was  Placido  di  Sangro,  whose 
friends  could  not  learn  the  cause  of  his  confinement  and  sent 
Luigi  di  Sangro  to  the  emperor  to  find  out.  Charles  said  that 
Placido  was  buon  cavaliero,  but  that  he  was  a  great  talker  and  that 
orders  had  already  been  sent  to  the  viceroy  about  him.  The 
incident  which  left  on  the  emperor  the  impression  of  Placido 's 
loquacity  is  too  characteristic  of  the  former's  good-nature  to  be 
omitted.  Once,  as  he  left  his  chamber,  Placido  followed  him, 
pleading  for  the  city;  he  appeared  not  to  listen  and  Placido  had  the 
audacity  to  pluck  his  mantle  and  ask  his  attention.  Charles 
turned  smilingly  and  said  "Go  on  Placido,  I  am  listening."  The 
Duke  of  Alva  was  close  behind  and  Placido  said  "Signore,  I  can- 
not talk,  for  the  Duke  of  Alva  hears  all  I  say,"  to  which  Charles 
replied,  laughing,  "Tell  him  not  to  hear  it"  and  then  obligingly 
drew  Placido  to  one  side  and  let  him  say  all  that  he  wanted.  The 
conclusion  of  the  whole  business  was  that  their  arms  were  returned 
to  the  citizens  and  the  emperor  contented  himself  with  the  fine, 
but  the  hated  viceroy  kept  his  post  until  his  death  in  1553,  and 
no  assurance  against  the  Inquisition  was  obtained.1 
Yet  the  stubborn  endurance  of  the  Neapolitans  had  won  a  tem- 


1  For  most  of  these  details  I  am  indebted  to  a  MS.  account  by  Antonio  Castaldo, 
a  notary  who  was  intimate  with  all  the  leaders  in  these  events.  He  was  a  devoted 
subject  of  Charles  V  and  considered  himself  most  fortunate  in  having  been  born 
in  his  time.  He  warmly  praises  the  emperor's  clemency  towards  the  city. 
Amabile's  elaborate  narrative  (I,  196-211)  furnishes  additional  facts  and  Dollin- 
ger  (Beitrage  zur  Polit.-,  Kirch.-  u.  Cultur-Geschichte,  I,  78-124)  gives  Mendoza's 
correspondence.  See  also  Giannone,  1st.  Civile,  Lib.  xxxn,  cap.  v,  §  1. — Pdramo, 
pp.  194-5. — Natalis  Comitis  Historiar.,  Lib.  n,  pp.  35,  52  (Argentorati,  1612). — 
Pallavicini,  Hist.  Concil.  Trident.,  Lib.  x,  cap.  i,  n.  4. — Collenucio  da  Pesaro,  Com- 
pendio  dell'  Historia  del  Regno  di  Napoli,  II,  184  (Napoli,  1563). — Campana,  La 
Vita  di  Don  Filippo  Secondo,  P.  i,  fol.  7  sqq.«(Vicenza,  1608). 

The  narrative  of  Uberto  Fogliotta  (Tumultus  Neapolitan!  sub  Petro  Toleto 
Prorege),  though  he  was  a  contemporary  who  tells  us  that  he  visited  Naples  for 
the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  facts,  is  a  confused  and  turgid  piece  of  rhetoric, 
of  no  historical  value. 


78  NAPLES 

porary  victory.  Although  they  gained  no  formal  condition  of 
exemption  from  the  papal  Inquisition,  the  attempt  to  introduce 
it  was,  for  the  moment,  abandoned.  For  awhile  even  the  epis- 
copal jurisdiction  over  heresy  appears  to  have  been  inert,  as  it 
has  left  no  traces  during  the  next  few  years.  This  respite,  how- 
ever, was  brief,  for  the  tide  of  persecution  was  arising  in  Italy. 
In  March,  1551,  Julius  III  issued  a  savage  bull,  pronouncing  by 
the  authority  of  God  eternal  malediction  on  all  who  should  inter- 
fere with  bishop  or  inquisitor  in  their  prosecution  of  heretics.1 
Paul  III,  in  1549,  on  the  resignation  of  Cardinal  Farnese,  had 
appointed,  as  archbishop  of  Naples,  Cardinal  Carafa,  who  was 
unsparing  in  the  extirpation  of  heresy  and  had  been  the  leader  in 
promoting  the  reorganization  of  the  papal  Inquisition  in  1542, 
of  which  he  was  made  the  head.  Charles  V  had  refused  to  grant 
his  exequatur  to  Carafa,  but  yielded,  in  July,  1551,  to  the  urgency 
of  Julius,  and  Carafa  lost  no  time  in  appointing  Scipione  Rebiba 
as  his  vicar-general,  through  whom  the  papal  Inquisition  was 
introduced  into  Naples.2  It  was  at  first  confined  to  his  archi- 
episcopate,  for  various  letters  to  bishops,  in  1552,  from  the  viceroy 
Toledo  show  them  to  be  busy  in  the  prosecution  of  heretics.3 
Toledo  died,  February  12,  1553  and  was  succeeded  by  Cardinal 
Pacheco,  who  did  not  reach  Naples  until  June.  The  interval, 
under  Toledo's  son  Luis,  seems  to  have  been  thought  opportune 
for  extending  the  jurisdiction  of  the  papal  Inquisition  for,  by  a 
decree  of  the  Congregation,  May  30,  1553,  Rebiba  was  created  its 
delegate  and  subsequently  styled  himself  "Vicar  of  Naples  and 
Commissioner  of  the  Holy  Inquisition  of  Rome.4 

1  Julii  PP.  Ill,  Bull  Licet  a  diversis,  18  Mart.,  1551  (Bullar.  Roman.  I,  799). 

3  Chioccarello,  Antistitum  Eccles.  Neap.  Catalogue,  pp.  331-2.     Carafa  was 
hostile  to  Spain  and,  on  his  elevation  to  the  papacy  as  Paul  IV,  in  1555,  he 
declared  the  throne  of  Naples  vacant  and  fallen  to  the  Holy  See.     He  made  an 
alliance  with  France  but,  in  the  ensuing  war,  he  was  speedily  brought  to  terms 
by  Alba.     He  retained  the  Neapolitan  archiepiscopate  for  some  time,  doubtless 
in  the  hope  of  causing  trouble  there. 

»  Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII. 

4  Amabile,  I,  214.     Rebiba  was  promoted  to  the  cardinalate  shortly  after  the 
accession  of  Paul  IV. 


THE  CALABEIAN  WALDEN8ES  79 

In  1555  the  episcopal  jurisdiction  was  completely  subordinated 
to  the  papal,  for  we  find  several  instances  in  which  prisoners  of 
bishops  were  demanded  by  the  Roman  Inquisition,  when  Mendoza, 
the  lieutenant  of  the  Viceroy  Pacheco,  orders  them  sent  under 
good  guard  to  Naples,  in  order  to  be  transmitted  to  Rome  and,  in 
1556,  it  would  even  seem  that  bishops  were  required  to  obtain 
Roman  commissions,  for  a  letter  of  Mendoza  to  the  Bishop  of 
Reggio  reproves  him  for  publishing  his  commission  before  it  had 
received  the  vice-regal  exequatur.1  It  was  probably  to  reconcile 
the  Neapolitans  to  this  intrusion  of  the  authority  of  the  abhorred 
institution  that,  by  a  brief  of  April  7,  1554,  Julius  III  abolished 
the  penalty  of  confiscation,  but  this  grace  was  illusory,  for  it 
required  the  assent  of  the  sovereign  which  was  withheld  and  the 
brief  itself  was  revoked  by  Paul  IV  in  1556.2 

It  was  not  long  after  this  that  occasion  offered  to  extend  still 
more  directly  the  authority  of  Rome.  Early  in  the  fourteenth 
century,  bands  of  Waldenses,  from  the  Alpine  valleys,  flying  from 
persecution,  had  settled  in  the  mountains  of  Calabria  and  Apulia. 
Their  example  was  followed  by  others;  they  increased  and  multi- 
plied in  peace,  under  covenants  from  the  crown  and  from  the 
nobles,  on  whose  lands  they  settled  and  made  productive,  until 
it  was  estimated  that  they  numbered  ten  thousand  souls.  As  a 
matter  of  self-protection  they  strictly  prohibited  marriage  with 
the  natives,  they  used  only  their  own  language  and  their  faith 
was  kept  pure  by  biennial  visits  from  the  barbes  or  travelling 
pastors  of  their  sect,  but  it  was  under  a  prudent  reserve,  for  they 
occasionally  went  to  mass,  they  allowed  their  children  to  be 
baptized  and  they  were  punctual  in  the  payment  of  tithes,  which 
secured  for  them  the  benevolent  indifference  of  the  local  priest- 
hood.3 More  than  two  centuries  of  this  undisturbed  existence 


1  Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII. 

2  Amabile,  I,  218. — Fontana,  Document!  Vatican!  contro  PEresia  luterana  in 
Italia,  p.  178  (Roma,  1892). 

8  Pen-in,  Histoire  des  Vaudois,  chap,  vn  (Geneve,  1618). — Amabile,  I,  236-9.— 
Lombard,  Jean-Louis  Paschale  et  les  Martyrs  de  Calabre  (Paris,  1881). — Filippo 
de'  Boni,  L'Inquisizone  e  i  Calabro-Valdese  (Milano,  1864). 


80  NAPLES 

seemed  to  promise  perpetual  immunity,  but  the  passions  aroused 
on  both  sides  by  the  Lutheran  revolt  were  too  violent  to  admit 
of  toleration  earned  by  dissimulation.  The  heretical  movement 
in  Naples  seems  to  have  aroused  more  watchful  scrutiny  for,  in 
January,  1551,  the  Spanish  Holy  Office  had  information,  through 
its  Sicilian  tribunal,  about  the  Waldenses,  whom  it  styled  Luther- 
ans, and  it  wrote  to  Charles  V  urging  him  to  adopt  measures  for 
their  eradication.1  Nothing  came  of  this,  however,  and  the  peace- 
ful sectaries  might  possibly  have  remained  in  obscurity  had  they 
not  commenced  to  feel  dissatisfied  with  their  ancestral  teachings 
and  sent  to  Geneva  for  more  modern  instructors.  Religious  zeal 
in  Geneva  was  at  a  white  heat  and  the  missionaries  despatched — 
Giovan  Liugi  Pascale  and  Giacomo  Bonelli — were  not  men  to  make 
compromises  with  Satan.  They  made  no  secret  of  their  beliefs 
and  they  paid  the  penalty,  the  one  being  strangled  and  burnt 
in  Rome,  September  15,  1560,  and  the  other  in  Palermo.2  Pas- 
cale had  been  arrested,  about  May  1,  1559,  by  Salvatore  Spinello, 
lord  of  La  Guardia,  apparently  to  preserve  his  vassals  from  perse- 
cution for,  since  the  coming  of  the  ardent  missionaries,  they  had 
ceased  to  attend  mass.3  With  his  companions  he  was  carried  to 
Cosenza  and  delivered  to  the  archiepiscopal  authorities.  Then 
the  viceroy,  the  Duke  of  Alcald,  intervened  in  a  manner  to  show 
how  uncertain  as  yet  was  the  inquisitorial  jurisdiction,  for  in 
letters  of  February  9,  1560,  he  urged  the  episcopal  Ordinary  to 
try  the  prisoners  for  heresy  and,  to  prevent  errors,  he  was  to  call 
for  advice  and  assistance  on  a  lay  judge,  Maestro  Bernardino 
Santacroce,  to  whom  powers  and  instructions  were  duly  sent,  thus 
constituting  a  mixed  tribunal  under  royal  authority.4  Eventually 
however  the  papal  Inquisition  claimed  and  took  Pascale,  who  was 
carried  to  Rome  and  executed. 
Its  attention  was  thus  called  to  the  Calabrian  heretics,  but  it 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  79,  fol.  135. 

a  Scipione  Lentolo,  Historia  delle  grandi  e  erudeli  Persecution!  fatte  ai  tempi 
nostri.     Edita  da  Teofilo  Gay,  pp.  227,  314  (Torre  Pellice,  1906). 
'  Ibidem,  pp.  251,  260  4  Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII. 


THE  CALABEIAN  WALDENSES  81 

was  not  until  November  13,  1560,  that  the  Dominican  Valerio 
Malvicino  da  Piacenza  presented  himself  at  Cosenza  as  inquisitor 
commissioned  by  Rome  to  take  the  affair  in  charge.  He  wandered 
around  among  the  Waldensian  villages  of  Montalto,  San  Sisto 
and  La  Guardia,  distinguishing  himself,  we  are  told,  as  a  glutton 
and  drunkard,  and  investigating  the  beliefs  of  the  people.  Then 
at  San  Sisto  he  ordered  them  all  to  abjure  their  errors  and  wear 
the  "habitello"  or  sanbenito.  This  they  refused,  nor  had  he 
more  success  at  Montalto,  though  at  La  Guardia  many  abjured 
on  his  telling  them  that  their  brethren  at  San  Sisto  had  done  so. 
Castaneto,  the  Spanish  Governor  of  Montalto,  prepared  to  arrest 
the  principal  inhabitants  of  San  Sisto,  when  the  whole  population 
took  to  the  woods,  and  Fra  Valerio  returned  to  Cosenza  to  seek 
aid  from  the  Marquis  of  Bucchianico,  Governor  of  Calabria,  who 
chanced  to  be  there.  He  ordered  the  people  to  lay  down  their 
arms  and  return  to  San  Sisto,  which  they  obediently  did,  on  May  8, 
1561,  but  they  took  flight  again  on  being  commanded  to  present 
themselves  in  Cosenza  with  their  wives  and  children.  Castaneto 
then  raised  a  force  to  reduce  them;  he  allowed  them  to  send  the 
women  and  children  back  to  San  Sisto,  before  attacking  them, 
but  when  he  did  so  he  fell  with  fifty  of  his  men.  This  victory 
availed  little  to  the  victors.  San  Sisto  was  burnt;  the  women  and 
children,  subjected  to  every  species  of  outrage,  scattered  through 
the  mountains,  where  most  of  them  were  captured  and  sent  to 
Cosenza;  hunger  forced  the  men  to  disband  and  nearly  all  of  them 
fell  into  the  hands  of  Bucchianico. 

San  Sisto  being  thus  settled,  Bucchianico  proceeded  to  La 
Guardia  with  Fra  Valerio  and  a  commissioner  named  Pansa 
appointed  by  the  viceroy  to  execute  justice.  Many  of  the  inhabi- 
tants fled,  but  returned  under  promise  of  pardon — their  flight 
being  subsequently  held  as  relapse  into  the  errors  which  they  had 
previously  abjured.  These  numbered  300  men  and  100  women, 
the  latter  of  whom  were  sent  to  Cosenza,  while  the  former,  together 
with  the  captives  of  San  Sisto,  were  carried  to  Montalto,  where  a 
sort  of  inquisitorial  tribunal  was  formed,  consisting  of  Fra  Vale- 
6 


82  NAPLES 

rio,  Pansa,  and  two  auditors,  Barone  and  Cove.  These  divided 
the  prisoners  between  them  and  each  proceeded  to  employ  torture 
indiscriminately  to  force  them  to  confess  the  foul  practices  ascribed 
to  them  and  to  profess  conversion.  Those  who  were  condemned 
were  confined  in  a  warehouse  and  their  sentence  was  read  in  pres- 
ence of  a  crowd  gathered  from  all  the  neighboring  towns.  The 
auto  de  fe  which  followed,  June  11,  1561,  is  described  in  a  lettei 
written  the  same  day  from  Montalto  by  a  Catholic  who  cannot 
conceal  his  profound  horror  at  the  scene.  From  their  place  of 
confinement  the  executioner  led  his  victims  one  by  one,  bandag- 
ing their  eyes  with  the  bloody  rag  which  had  served  for  their 
predecessors.  Like  sheep  to  the  slaughter  they  were  thus  taken 
to  the  public  square  where  he  cut  their  throats;  they  were  then 
quartered  and  the  fragments  were  distributed  on  poles  along  the 
roads  from  one  end  of  Calabria  to  the  other — a  spectacle  which 
another  pious  contemporary  describes  as  fearful  to  the  heretic 
while  confirming  the  true  believer  in  the  faith.  The  number  thus 
butchered  on  that  day  amounted  to  eighty-eight,  while  in  addition 
there  were  seven  who  had  triumphed  over  the  torture  and  refused 
to  recant  their  heresies,  and  these  were  to  be  burnt  alive  as  im 
penitents.  Sentence  of  death  was  also  pronounced  against  a 
hundred  of  the  older  women;  the  whole  number  of  captives  was 
reckoned  at  1600,  all  of  whom  were  condemned.  The  writer  adds 
that  unless  the  Holy  See  and  the  viceroy  interfere,  Bucchianico 
will  not  hold  his  hand  until  he  has  destroyed  them  all.1 

He  doubtless  continued  his  cruel  work  with  the  rest  of  his 
prisoners,  but  details  are  lacking  for  our  next  source  of  infor- 
mation is  a  letter  of  June  27th,  written  from  Montalto  by  Luigi 
d'Appiano  (apparently  an  official  of  the  Archbishop  of  Reggio)  to 
the  Abate  Parpaglia.  Rome  had  taken  alarm  at  the  butchery  of 
June  llth  and  had  commissioned  the  archbishop,  then  returning  to 
Naples,  to  take  charge  of  the  affair  and  conduct  it  in  more  regular 
fashion.  D'Appiano  explains  that  the  prisoners  from  La  Guardia 


1  Lentolo,  pp.  228-41.— Gerdes,  Specimen  Italiae  Reformats,  p.  134  (Lugd. 
Bat.,  1765).— Amabile,  I,  pp.  248-9. 


THE  GALABRIAN  WALDENSES  83 

were  regarded  as  relapsed  (and  consequently  to  be  abandoned 
to  the  secular  arm),  because  they  had  abjured,  while  those  from 
San  Sisto,  who  had  not,  were  simple  heretics,  whom  the  Church 
would  receive  back  on  their  submission.  He  tells  us  that  Buc- 
chianico,  with  the  commissioner  and  the  archiepiscopal  vicar  of 
Cosenza,  had  concluded  to  impose  a  salutary  penance  on  the 
least  guilty;  those  more  obstinate  were  to  be  sent  to  the  galleys, 
and  the  ministers  and  leaders  to  the  stake ;  of  these  five  had  already 
been  sent  to  Cosenza  to  be  burnt  alive,  after  smearing  them  with 
pitch  so  as  to  prolong  their  sufferings  and  serve  as  a  terrifying 
example.  A  reward  of  ten  crowns  a  head  had  been  offered  for 
the  capture  of  fugitives  and  they  were  being  daily  brought  in. 
Many  women  prisoners,  who  were  instruments  of  the  devil,  were 
to  be  burnt  and  of  these  five,  who  had  confessed  to  the  nocturnal 
orgies  attributed  to  the  heretics,  would  be  executed  at  Cosenza  the 
next  day.1  All  children  under  fifteen  years  of  age  were  scattered 
among  Catholic  families,  at  a  distance  of  at  least  eight  miles  from 
the  Waldensian  settlements  and  were  forbidden  to  intermarry.2 
How  long  the  persecution  lasted  does  not  appear,  but  a  letter  of 
December  12,  1561,  from  the  viceroy,  alludes  to  prisoners  whose 
trials  he  ordered  to  be  expedited.3 

That  the  persecution  was  religious  and  not  political  is  seen  in 
the  fact  that  the  people  of  San  Sisto,  who  had  risen  in  arms  and 
had  defended  themselves,  were  treated  with  much  less  harshness 
than  those  of  La  Guardia  whose  offence  was  technically  construed 
as  relapse  into  heresy.  The  conditions  imposed  on  those  who  were 
spared  the  galleys  or  the  stake  confirm  this.  The  Roman  Inquisi- 
tion prescribed  that  all  should  wear  the  yellow  habitello  with  the 
red  cross;  that  all  should  hear  mass  every  day,  before  going  to 
labor,  under  heavy  fines;  that  confession  and  communion  should 
be  observed  on  the  prescribed  feast-days  by  all  of  proper  age; 


1  Amabile,  I,  250,  253.— Lentolo,  p.  245. 

*  Lentolo,  p.  244.     This  rests  wholly  on  the  authority  of  Lentolo  and  probably 
applied  only  to  orphans.     It  was  a  practice  derived  from  Spain. 
8  Amabile,  I,  256. 


84  NAPLES 

that  for  twenty-five  years  there  should  be  no  intermarriage  be- 
tween them;  that  all  communication  with  Piedmont  and  Geneva 
should  cease,  together  with  various  other  prescriptions  looking 
to  the  training  of  the  children  in  the  faith  and  the  instruction  of 
the  elders.  To  these  Fra  Valerio  added  that  not  more  than  six 
persons  should  assemble  together  and  that  their  native  tongue, 
which  they  had  sedulously  preserved,  should  be  abandoned  for 
Italian.1 

In  the  exigencies  of  the  moment  the  papal  Inquisition  had  thus 
obtained  a  recognition  in  Neapolitan  territory  for  which  it  had 
hitherto  been  vainly  struggling,  but  it  was  intermingled  with  the 
episcopal  and  royal  jurisdictions  in  a  manner  indicating  how 
little  organization  there  was  for  action  in  an  emergency.  The 
royal  jurisdiction,  moreover,  asserted  itself  still  further  when, 
November  13, 1561,  the  viceroy  issued  a  commission  to  Fra  Valerio 
as  inspector  of  heretical  books  throughout  the  kingdom,  author- 
izing him  to  go  to  the  points  of  importation  and  empowering  him 
to  summon  to  his  aid  the  secular  magistrates — a  commission  which 
was  renewed  May  8,  1562.2  The  viceroy  also  enforced  one  of  the 
provisions  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  for  he  laid  claim  to  the  con- 
fiscations and,  on  September  17, 1561,  he  commissioned  Dr.  An- 
tonio Moles  to  proceed  to  the  spot  and  take  possession  of  all  the 
property  of  those  convicted,  including  the  debts  due  to  them. 
Apparently  there  had  been  general  plunder,  for  he  was  empow- 
ered to  enforce  the  surrender  of  what  had  been  taken.  Dr.  Moles 
seems  to  have  had  much  trouble  with  clerics,  who  had  been  active 
in  the  spoiling  and  had  committed  many  enormous  offences;  as 
clerics  they  were  beyond  his  jurisdiction,  but  the  vicar  of  Cosenza 
sent  him  an  assistant  to  exercise  the  necessary  spiritual  juris- 
diction.8 As  La  Guardia  and  San  Sisto  had  both  been  burnt  and 
the  country  laid  waste,  there  cannot  have  been  much  left  to  con- 
fiscate, but  Dr.  Moles  seems  to  have  conscientiously  stripped  the 
land  bare,  for  when  the  results  were  sent  to  Naples  and  sold  at 

1  Lombard,  op.  cit.,  p.  105.  '  Amabile,  I,  257. 

•  Chioccarello  MSS.,  Tom.  VIII.— Amabile,  I,  256. 


WALDENSES  OF  APULIA  85 

auction  they  produced  a  handsome  amount  of  money.1  This 
evidently  represents  only  the  movable  property;  the  real-estate 
seems  to  have  been  granted  by  Philip  II  to  the  Confraternity  for 
the  redemption  of  captives;  it  was  valued  at  5000  ducats  and  wa.s 
sold  for  2500  by  the  Confraternity  to  Salvatore  Spinello.  He 
had  been  created  Marquis  of  Fuscaldo  in  recompense  for  the  zeal 
with  which  he  had  aided  the  Inquisition  in  destroying  his  vassals, 
and  he  finally  sold  the  lands  to  the  communities  for  an  annual 
revenue  of  180  ducats.2  Strenuous  as  were  the  methods  of  the 
Inquisition,  however,  deeply  rooted  faiths  have  power  of  pro- 
tracted resistance,  and  some  correspondence  of  the  Roman  Con- 
gregation with  the  Duchess  of  Montesalto,  in  1599  and  1600, 
would  indicate  that  there  were  still  remnants  of  these  heretics  in 
Calabria  and  that  there  was  talk  of  establishing  a  school  for  their 
conversion.3 

The  Waldenses  of  Apulia  had  a  milder  fate.  The  ruin  and 
butchery  in  Calabria  was  a  warning  to  all  parties.  Their  lords 
were  powerful  nobles — the  Prince  of  Molfetta,  the  Duke  of  Airola, 
the  Count  of  Biccari  and  others — who  did  not  wish  to  see  their 
lands  laid  waste  and  depopulated.  Fra  Valerio  was  not  called  in, 
but  a  papal  commission  was  procured  for  Ferdinando  Anna, 
Bishop  of  Bovino,  in  whose  diocese  most  of  the  infected  district 
lay;  less  inhuman  measures  were  employed  and  doubtless  the 
savage  work  in  Calabria  led  the  heretics  to  be  accommodating. 
Only  a  few  of  the  more  zealous  were  prosecuted;  the  mass  of  the 


1  Collenuccio,  Historia  del  Regno  de  Napoli,  II,  329b  (Napoli,  1563). 

The  process  of  confiscation  seems  to  have  been  protracted.  A  vice-regal  letter 
of  January  29, 1569,  states  that  all  the  proceeds  had  not  yet  been  sold  and  orders 
that  the  matter  be  closed  and  the  money  be  paid  into  the  treasury. — Chioccarello 
MSS.,  T.  VIII. 

From  a  transaction  in  1572  it  appears  that  when  Neapolitans  were  burnt  in 
Rome,  notice  was  sent  to  the  viceroy  in  order  that  he  might  seize  their  con- 
fiscated estates.  At  the  same  time  a  statement  was  presented  of  their  prison 
expenses,  which  were  reimbursed  to  the  Congregation  of  the  Inquisition  out  of  the 
proceeds. — Ibidem. 

2  Lombard,  op.  cit.,  p.  107. 

3  Decret.  Sac.  Congr.  S.  Officii,  p.  221  (R.  Archivio  di  Stato  in  Roma,  Fondo 
Camerale,  Congr.  del  S.  Offizio,  Vol.  3). 


86  NAPLES 

population  submitted  and  seem  to  have  been  taken  to  the  bosom 
of  Mother  Church  without  severe  penalties.1 

Possibly  Fra  Valerio  may  have  been  engaged  in  more  congenial 
occupation  in  the  province  of  Reggio,  where  at  this  time  there  were 
discovered  some  survivors  of  those  who  had  embraced  the  doc- 
trines taught  by  Juan  de  Valde*s.  The  viceroy  sent  thither  the 
Commissioner  Panza,  fresh  from  his  labors  at  Montalto.  He 
must  have  had  inquisitorial  assistance  and  though,  in  the 
fragmentary  records,  Fra  Valerio's  name  does  not  appear,  he 
was  the  most  probable  collaborator  in  the  active  work  which 
ensued.  Four  citizens  of  Reggio  and  eleven  of  San  Lorenzo  were 
burnt,  while  a  number  abjured  and  escaped  with  imposition  of 
the  habitello.2 

In  all  these  proceedings  there  is  an  incongruous  intermingling  of 
jurisdictions — papal,  episcopal  and  secular — which  shows  how 
well  the  people  had  thus  far  succeeded  in  preventing  the  estab- 
lishment of  an  organized  Inquisition.  They  looked  with  com- 
placency on  the  sufferings  of  the  heretics  and  offered  no  opposition 
to  the  measures  adopted,  satisfied  with  the  participation  of  the 
civil  and  episcopal  powers.  They  had,  however,  lost  none  of  their 
horror  of  the  Spanish  institution  and,  when  Philip  II  endeavored 
to  force  it  upon  Milan,  their  fears  were  aroused  that  it  might  be 
imposed  upon  Naples.  In  1564  there  was  much  popular  excite- 
ment; the  Piazze  assembled  and  adopted  strong  declarations; 
Pius  IV,  who  did  not  wish  to  see  the  Spanish  Inquisition  in  Italy, 
seconded  these  efforts  and  peremptorily  ordered  the  Theatin  Paolo 
d'Arezzo — subsequently  cardinal  and  archbishop  of  Naples — to 
accept  the  mission  with  which  the  city  charged  him  to  Philip,  to 
remonstrate  against  the  threatened  introduction  of  the  Inquisition 
and  also  to  ask  for  the  revival  of  the  brief  of  Julius  III  abolishing 
confiscations.  The  latter  request  Philip  refused  but,  in  letters  of 
March  10,  1565,  he  assured  his  subjects  that  he  had  no  intention 


Amabile  I,  259.  2  Ibidem,  p.  258. 


EPISCOPAL  INQUISITION  87 

of  introducing  the  Spanish  Inquisition  and  that  trials  for  heresy 
should  be  conducted  in  the  ordinary  way  as  heretofore.1 

The  "via  ordinaria"  meant  episcopal  jurisdiction  exercised  in 
accordance  with  the  practice  of  the  spiritual  courts  in  other 
criminal  trials  as  distinguished  from  the  secret  procedure  of  the 
Inquisition,  which  denied  to  the  accused  almost  every  means  of 
defence.  This  in  the  subsequent  struggles  was  constantly  cited 
by  the  Neapolitans  as  their  protection,  but  it  was  easily  evaded. 
The  Roman  Inquisition,  it  is  true,  was  not  allowed  to  organize  a 
tribunal  with  an  inquisitor  at  its  head  and  commissioners  in  all 
the  cities,  as  was  the  case  in  the  northern  provinces  of  Italy,  and 
to  exhibit  its  power  with  the  spectacle  of  autos  de  fe,  but  it  had 
its  agents  more  or  less  openly  and  its  victims  were  transmitted 
to  Rome  for  trial  and  execution.  Alongside  of  this,  for  a  time  at 
least,  the  episcopal  jurisdiction  over  heresy  was  fully  recognized 
and  a  number  of  vice-regal  letters  of  the  period  show  that  it  was 
vigorously  exercised  by  some  of  the  prelates,  though  whether  by 
the  via  ordinaria  or  not  does  not  appear.2  This  gratified  the 
Neapolitans  who,  in  1571,  sent  a  deputation  to  Archbishop  Carafa 
to  congratulate  him  on  his  holy  labors  against  the  heretics  and 
Jews  and  to  ask  him  to  express  to  the  pope  their  satisfaction  that 
these  people  should  be  punished  and  extirpated  by  the  episcopal 
Ordinaries,  according  to  the  canons  and  without  the  interposition 
of  the  secular  court.3  This  is  a  scarcely  veiled  hint  of  the  popular 
detestation  of  the  Inquisition,  whether  Spanish  or  papal,  and  that 

1  Pallavicini,  Hist.  Concil.  Trident.,  Lib.  xxn,  cap.  viii,  §  2. — Al  nostro  Santis- 
simo  Padre  Innocenzio  XII  intorno  al  Procedimento  nelle  cause  che  si  trattano 
nel  Tribunale  del  S.  Officio  (MS.  penes  me). — Discorso  del  Dottore  Angelo  Gioc- 
catano  (Gaetano  Agela),  MS.  penes  me. — MSS.  of  Royal  Library  of  Munich,  Cod. 
ItaL,  209,  fol.  117-18.— Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII  (see  Appendix). 

2  Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII. 

8  "  Delle  sante  dimostrazioni  contro  gli  eretici  ed  Ebrei,  e  supplicando  che  voglia 
esser  servito  di  far  intendere  &  sua  Beatitudine  la  commune  sodisfazione  che  tiene 
tutta  la  citt£  che  questa  sorte  di  persone  siano  del  tutto  castigate  ed  estirpate  per 
mano  del  nostro  ordinario  come  si  conviene  como  sempre  avemo  supplicate, 
giusta  la  forma  delli  canoni  e  senza  interposizione  di  corte  secolare,  ma  santa- 
mente  procedano  nelle  cose  della  religione  tantum." — Giacinto  de'  Mori,  Scritture 
e  Motivi  dati  a'  Signori  Deputati  di  Napoli  (MS.  penes  me). 


88  NAPLES 

this  continued  unabated  is  manifested  by  the  Venetian  envoy, 
Girolamo  Lippomani  who,  in  his  relation  of  1575,  describes  the 
Neapolitans  as  most  religious  and  filled  with  zeal  for  the  love  of 
God,  but  nevertheless  they  will  not  endure  the  very  name  of  the 
Inquisition  and  would  be  ready  to  rise  against  it  as  they  have  done 
in  the  past.1 

The  occasion  of  this  address  to  the  archbishop  presumably  was 
a  lively  persecution  of  Judaizers  then  on  foot.  There  had  been 
many  abjurations,  some  burnings,  and  the  archbishop  was  pre- 
paring to  build  cells  attached  to  the  walls  of  his  palace  to  provide 
for  the  confinement  of  those  sentenced  to  perpetual  prison.  There 
was  considerable  popular  excitement  because  an  inquisitorial 
deputy,  with  the  title  of  vicar,  had  been  sent  from  Rome,  and  there 
was  faction  among  the  citizens,  for  the  number  of  accused  was 
large,  with  kinships  ramifying  throughout  the  community.  Car- 
dinal Granvelle,  then  recently  appointed  viceroy,  in  a  letter  of 
July  31,  1571,  to  the  Cardinal  of  Pisa,  head  of  the  Roman  Inquisi- 
tion, expressed  his  fears  of  a  tumult ;  he  had  asked  the  archbishop 
to  suspend  the  prosecutions  and  postpone  building  the  cells;  it 
would  be  better  to  send,  as  the  pope  desired,  the  accused  to  Rome, 
where  they  would  be  vigorously  punished.  In  effect,  towards 
the  end  of  December,  four  women  and  three  men  were  sent  as 
Judaizers  to  Rome,  where  they  were  duly  strangled  and  burnt  on 
February  9,  1572.2 

This  sending  of  the  accused  to  the  Roman  Inquisition,  whether 
for  trial  or  execution,  gradually  became  the  accepted  custom, 
as  a  sort  of  compromise  between  the  pretensions  of  the  Holy 
Office  and  the  settled  repugnance  of  the  people.  It  was  not, 
however,  without  some  complications.  Of  old,  no  arrests  by  the 
Inquisition  were  permitted  without  the  royal  assent  in  each  case, 
but  in  the  absence  of  an  organized  Inquisition  this  salutary  rule 
seems  to  have  been  forgotten  and  it  evidently  was  not  observed 
in  the  Calabrian  persecutions.  When,  however,  in  1568,  the 
authorities  of  Reggio  were  ordered  by  the  Sicilian  tribunal  to 


Relazioni  Venete,  Serie  II,  T.  II,  p.  273.  2  Amabile,  I,  312-16, 


A BD  UCTION  OF  A  CO  USED  89 

arrest  and  forward  two  individuals  charged  with  heresy,  obedience 
was  refused  and  the  Duke  of  Alcala,  still  viceroy,  was  notified. 
He  approved  the  position  taken  but  instructed  the  officials  to 
arrest  the  parties  and  hold  them  until  the  Sicilian  tribunal  should 
report  whether  the  alleged  offences  were  committed  in  Sicily  or 
in  Naples;  in  the  former  case  he  was  to  forward  them;  in  the  latter 
to  hold  them  until  it  should  be  determined  whether  they  were 
justiciable  by  the  Ordinary  or  by  the  Roman  Holy  Office,  and 
such  was  to  be  the  rule  hereafter.  The  Sicilian  tribunal  did  not 
relish  this  interference  with  its  arbitrary  methods  and  the  next 
month  there  came  news  that  two  of  its  emissaries  had  landed  at 
Reggio,  gone  inland  and  carried  off  to  Messina  a  friar  from  an 
Augustinian  convent;  moreover  they  were  now  endeavoring  to  do 
the  same  with  another  of  the  brethren.  Thereupon  the  viceroy 
ordered  the  utmost  watchfulness  to  be  observed  and,  if  any 
attempt  of  the  kind  were  made,  the  inquisitorial  agents  were 
to  be  thrown  in  prison  and  held  for  his  instructions.1 

If  this  caution  was  necessary  in  dealing  with  a  province  under 
the  same  crown,  much  more  was  it  applicable  to  the  Roman 
Congregation  of  the  Inquisition.  No  independent  state  could 
permit  its  citizens  to  be  abducted,  without  the  knowledge  of  the 
authorities,  at  the  bidding  of  a  foreign  prince  whose  policy  at 
any  moment  might  be  hostile.  To  submit  to  such  a  claim  was 
an  abdication  of  sovereignty.2  Moreover,  nearly  all  Catholic 
kingdoms  had  been  forced,  by  the  perpetual  meddling  of  the 
papacy  with  their  internal  affairs,  to  adopt  the  rule  that  no 
papal  rescript  of  any  kind  should  be  enforced  without  first 
submitting  it  to  the  government  for  its  exequatur.  Naples,  as 

1  Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII. 

2  In  1597  the  Venetian  envoy  Girolamo  Ramusio  alludes  to  the  case  of   the 
Baron  of  Castellanetta,  excommunicated  by  his  bishop  and  summoned  to  Rome; 
also  to  that  of  Mastrillo,  fiscal  of  the  Vicaria,  who  sold  a  quantity  of  grain  belong- 
ing to  the  Abbey  of  S.  Leonardo  which  was  held  by  Cardinal  Gaetano,  in  con- 
sequence of  which  he  was  cited  to  Rome.     In  both  cases  the  court  intervened 
and  prevented  obedience  for  the  reason  that,  if  a  precedent  was  established  of 
allowing  those  cited  by  Rome  to  go,  the  principal  royal  ministers  could  be  sum- 
moned and  forced  to  go. — Relazioni  Venete,  Appendice,  p.  310, 


90  NAPLES 

especially  exposed  to  papal  encroachments,  was  particularly 
careful  as  to  this,  and  no  brief,  however  trivial,  was  allowed 
to  take  effect  without  being  submitted  to  the  authorities  for 
approval.1  In  1567  we  find  Pius  V  exhaling  his  indignation  to 
Philip  II  at  the  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  Holy  See  because 
a  bishop,  whom  he  had  sent  to  Naples  as  visitor  to  report  on 
the  condition  of  the  clergy,  was  not  allowed  to  exercise  his 
functions  without  the  exequatur.2 

This  necessarily  applied  to  the  citations  and  orders  of  arrest 
with  which  the  Roman  Inquisition  was  endeavoring  to  extend  its 
jurisdiction  over  Naples.  In  April,  1564,  Hieronimo  de  Monte, 
Apostolic  Commissioner  in  Benevento  (a  papal  enclave  in  Neapoli- 
tan territory),  in  the  case  of  the  Marquis  of  Vico,  was  taking  testi- 
mony to  the  effect  that  no  one  would  dare  to  serve  a  summons  from 
Rome  on  him  without  the  vice-regal  exequatur,  as  he  would  thus 
expose  himself  to  punishment,  including  perhaps  the  galleys.3 
Rome  endeavored  to  evade  this  limitation  on  its  jurisdiction  and 
was  met  with  consistent  firmness.  In  1568  Alcala  was  informed 
that,  under  orders  from  the  Inquisition,  the  bishop  had  arrested 
a  citizen  named  Martino  Bagnato  and  was  holding  him  for  trans- 
mission to  Rome.  The  bishop  was  at  once  notified  that  he  must 
surrender  the  prisoner  to  the  captain  of  the  city,  to  be  held  sub- 
ject to  prosecution  in  the  via  ordinaria  by  his  competent  judge, 
and  the  captain  was  ordered,  in  case  of  refusal,  to  take  him  by 
force.  This  did  not  avail  Bagnato  much,  for  the  Roman  Inqui- 
sition then  wrote  to  the  viceroy,  asking  to  have  the  prisoner 
forwarded,  which  presumably  was  done.4 


1  Relazioni  Venete,  Appendice,  p.  312. 

*  Pii  Quinti  Epistt.,  Lib.  i,  Ep.  vi  (Antverpise,  1640). 

1  Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII. 

Failing  in  this  Cardinal  Ghislieri,  then  at  the  head  of  the  Roman  Inquisition, 
wrote  in  November  to  Viceroy  Alcald  asking  that  Vico  be  sent  or  be  placed  under 
bonds  to  present  himself.  To  this,  in  April,  1565,  the  viceroy  assented,  requiring 
Vico  to  give  security  in  10,000  ducats  to  that  effect;  he  was  already  in  prison  and 
condemned  to  banishment  on  complaint  of  his  vassals;  he  duly  went  to  Rome 
and  was  sentenced  to  compurgation  and  penance. — Amabile,  I,  286. 

4  Chioccarello,  ubi  sup. 


ENFORCEMENT  OF  THE  EXEQUATUR  91 

There  was  in  this  merely  an  assertion  of  sovereignty  and  no 
desire  to  shield  the  heretic,  for  when  the  Inquisition  accepted  the 
inevitable  and  made  application  to  the  viceroy,  it  was  granted 
almost  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  formality  was  simple.  The 
application  was  referred  to  the  chief  chaplain,  who  made  a  show 
of  consulting  with  the  judges  of  the  Audiencia  and  reported  that 
it  was  in  due  form,  when  the  exequatur  was  granted.  Occasion- 
ally, however,  some  question  might  be  raised  when  the  process 
called  attention  to  some  abusive  extension  of  inquisitorial  juris- 
diction. Thus  in  1610  a  certain  Fabio  Orzolino  asked  for  the 
exequatur  on  a  citation  which  he  had  obtained  directed  to  the 
Abate  Angelo  and  Carlo  della  Rocca  of  Traetto  (Gaeta).  On 
this  the  chief  chaplain  reported  that  the  parties  owed  to  Orzolino 
88  ducats,  for  non-payment  of  which  they  had  been  publicly  excom- 
municated. Under  this  excommunication  they  had  lain  for  a 
year,  which,  according  to  the  canon  law,  rendered  them  suspect  of 
heresy  and  thus,  by  a  strained  construction,  subjected  them  to 
inquisitorial  action.  It  is  not  easy  to  understand  the  decision  of 
the  chaplain  that  the  exequatur  should  be  granted  as  to  the  abate 
and  not  as  to  the  layman.1  A  more  wholesome  case  was  one  in 
1574,  shown  in  the  application  of  Giovanni  Tomase,  Modesto 
Abate  and  Sebastiano  Luca  for  an  exequatur  to  the  order  of  the 
Roman  Inquisition  to  sell  the  property  of  Nicola  Pegna  and  Gio- 
vanni Mateo  of  Tagio,  to  reimburse  the  applicants  for  expenses 
amounting  to  338  crowns  arising  from  false  accusations  of  heresy 
brought  against  them  by  Pegna  and  Mateo,  who  had  been  con- 
demned for  false-witness  to  scourging  in  Rome,  with  the  addition 
of  the  galleys  for  Mateo.3 

Under  this  system  the  Roman  Inquisition  had  a  tolerably  free 
hand  in  Naples  and  its  arrests  were  sufficiently  numerous  for  it  to 
establish  a  regular  service  of  vessels  to  carry  its  prisoners,  trans- 
portation by  sea  being  much  more  economical  than  by  land.  The 
latter  was  expensive,  as  we  chance  to  learn  from  a  letter  of  March 
8,  1586,  ordering  Captain  Amoroso  to  be  forwarded  by  land 

1  Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII  (see  Appendix).  » Ibidem. 


92  NAPLES 

because  the  tempestuous  weather  prevented  vessels  from  putting 
to  sea.  He  was  to  have  a  guard  of  six  soldiers  who  were  to  bring 
back  a  certificate  of  his  delivery  to  the  Inquisition,  and  the  expen- 
ses of  the  journey  were  to  be  defrayed  from  the  property  of  the 
prisoner.1  The  sea  service,  however,  was  not  without  its  risks. 
When,  in  1593,  Fray  Geronimo  Gracian,  the  disciple  of  Santa 
Teresa,  left  Naples  for  Rome,  it  was  on  a  fragata  de  la  Inquisition, 
which  is  described  as  well  provided  with  chains  and  shackles  for 
securing  prisoners.  It  chanced  to  be  captured  by  the  Moors  and 
Gracian  narrowly  escaped  burning,  as  he  was  supposed  to  be  an 
inquisitor.2 

Still  Rome  was  not  satisfied  with  this  and  it  found  Viceroy 
Osuna  (1582-86)  obsequious  to  its  exigencies.  About  1585  he 
allowed  Sixtus  V  to  establish  in  Naples  a  regular  Commissioner 
of  the  Inquisition,  with  jurisdiction  practically  superseding  that 
of  the  archbishop.  By  this  time  the  spirit  of  the  Neapolitans  had 
been  effectually  broken.  Already,  in  1580,  the  Venetian  envoy 
Alvise  Lando,  in  describing  how  they  had  been  subdued  by  the 
universal  misery  attendant  on  the  Spanish  domination,  especially 
under  the  vice-royalty  of  the  Marquis  of  Monde  jar  (1575-79),  adds 
that  it  is  the  opinion  of  many  that  if  the  king  chose  to  establish 
the  Inquisition,  so  greatly  abhorred,  there  would  be  little  oppo- 
sition.3 How  speedily  under  these  circumstances  the  episcopal 
functions  became  atrophied  is  illustrated  by  a  case  occurring  in 
1592.  In  1590  a  French  youth  named  Jacques  Girard  was 
captured  by  a  Barbary  corsair,  circumcised  and  forced  to  embrace 
Islam.  In  1592  he  was  sent  on  shore  in  Calabria  with  a  boat's 
crew  to  procure  water,  when  he  escaped  and,  being  taken  for  a 
Moor,  was  thrown  in  prison  at  Cosenza.  He  applied  to  the  arch- 

1  Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII. 

1  Escritos  de  Santa  Teresa,  T.  II,  pp.  457,  463  (Madrid,  1869).  Cf.  Amabile, 
I,  229-30. 

In  1588  we  find  the  Congregation  of  the  Inquisition  scolding  the  nuncio  at 
Naples  for  refusing  to  pay  the  expenses  of  this  transportation,  as  his  predecessors 
had  always  done.— Decret.  Sac.  Congr.  S.  Officii,  p.  192  (Bibl.  del  R.  Archivio 
di  Stato  in  Roma,  Fondo  Camerale,  Congr.  del  S.  Offizio,  Vol  3). 

•  Amabile,  I,  332.— Relazioni  Venete,  Serie  II,  T.  V,  p.  471. 


PAPAL  ENCROACHMENTS  93 

bishop  for  reconciliation  to  the  Church;  the  prelate  felt  unable  to 
act,  even  in  so  simple  a  matter,  and  wrote  to  the  Roman  Inquisi- 
tion for  instructions.  Before  these  came,  Jacques  had  been  trans- 
ferred to  Naples;  a  second  application  was  made  to  Rome  and  the 
necessary  powers  were  sent  to  the  Archbishop  of  Naples,  with 
orders  to  report  the  result.1  So,  in  the  trial  for  heresy  of  the 
celebrated  Fra  Tommaso  Campanella,  in  1600,  Clement  VIII 
designated  as  a  court  his  nuncio  at  Naples,  the  archiepiscopal 
vicar  and  the  Bishop  of  Termoli,  and  they  were  to  transmit 
to  Rome  a  summary  of  the  case,  with  their  opinions,  before 
rendering  sentence.2 

Under  such  a  viceroy  as  Osuna,  the  inquisitorial  commissioner 
was  superfluous,  for  all  the  powers  of  the  state  were  put  at  the 
disposition  of  the  papal  representatives.  As  early  as  1582  we 
find  the  nuncio  assuming  jurisdiction  and  requesting  Osuna  to 
execute  a  sentence  of  scourging  which  he  had  passed  on  the  Vene- 
tian Giulio  Secamonte  for  suspicion  of  heresy,  a  request  which 
was  promptly  granted.  The  Roman  Inquisition  had  only  to  ask 
for  the  arrest  of  any  one  throughout  the  kingdom,  when  imme- 
diately orders  were  given  to  the  local  authorities  to  seize  him  and 
send  him  to  Naples  for  transmission  to  Rome,  and  if  necessary  to 
take  possession  of  and  forward  all  his  books  and  papers.  From 
this  the  highest  in  the  land  were  not  secure.  In  1583  Cardinal 
Savelli,  then  secretary  of  the  Inquisition,  wrote  that  the  person  of 
Prince  Gianbattista  Spinello  was  wanted  in  Rome  to  answer  for 
matters  of  faith,  when  immediately  Osuna  issued  orders  to  seize 
him  wherever  he  might  be  found  and  bring  him  to  the  Royal 


1  Bibliotheque  Nationale  de  France,  fonds  latin,  8994,  fol.  252. 

Possibly  this  may  be  partially  explained  by  the  fact  that  heresy  was  a  case 
reserved  to  the  Holy  See,  the  absolution  for  which  in  the  forum  internum  required 
a  special  licence  (cap.  3,  Extrav.  Commun.,  Lib.  v,  Tit.  ix).  But  in  the  forum 
externum  the  episcopal  jurisdiction  over  heresy  was  in  no  way  curtailed  by  the 
existence  of  the  Inquisition  (Benedicti  PP.  XIV  de  Synodo  dicecesana,  Lib.  ix, 
cap.  iv,  n.  3).  This  was  fully  admitted  by  the  Roman  Inquisition  (Decret.  S. 
Congr.  S.  Officii,  pp.  174-5,  177,  266-8,  272-3  ap.  R.  Archivio  di  State  in 
Roma,  Fondo  Camerale,  Congr.  del  S.  Offizio,  Vol.  3). 

*  Amabile,  Fra  Tommaso  Campanella,  II,  120-1  (Napoli,  1882). 


94  NAPLES 

Audiencia,  where  he  was  to  give  security  in  25,000  ducats  to 
present  himself  within  a  month  to  the  Holy  Office  and  not  to 
leave  Rome  without  its  permission.1 

Osuna's  successor,  Juan  de  Zuniga,  Count  of  Miranda,  was 
equally  subservient,  but  he  insisted  on  the  observance  of  the  for- 
malities when  Rome  sought  to  act  independently  without  vice- 
regal intervention.  In  1587,  at  the  order  of  Cardinal  Savelli, 
the  Apostolic  Vicar  of  Lecce  induced  the  Audiencia  of  the  Terra 
d'Otranto  to  arrest  Giantonio  Stomeo.  This  was  overslaughing 
the  viceroy  who  rebuked  the  Audiencia,  telling  it  that  it  should 
have  referred  the  matter  to  him  and  awaited  his  instructions, 
meanwhile  assuring  itself  of  the  person  of  the  individual.  It 
was  purely  a  matter  of  etiquette  for,  in  the  end,  after  some  further 
correspondence,  Miranda  ordered  Stomeo  to  be  forwarded  to 
Naples  by  the  first  chain  (of  galley  slaves),  giving  advices  so  that 
arrangements  could  be  made  for  his  transmission  to  Rome.  There 
seems  to  have  been  some  doubt  as  to  the  correctness  of  the  stand 
taken  by  Miranda  for  subsequently  Annibale  Moles,  Regent  of 
the  Vicaria,  was  called  upon  for  a  consulta  in  which  he  stated  the 
rule  to  be  that  arrests  for  the  Inquisition  must  always  pass  through 
the  hands  of  the  viceroy,  who  always  ordered  their  execution.2 

Rome  was  not  satisfied  with  this  and  continued  its  encroach- 
ments, taking  advantage  of  any  weakness  of  the  civil  power  to 
establish  precedents  and  claim  them  as  rights.  In  1628  we  find 
it  represented  by  the  Dominican  Fra  Giacinto  Petronio,  Bishop 
of  Molfetta,  who  styled  himself  inquisitor  and  was  especially 
audacious  in  extending  his  powers.  He  arrested  Dr.  Tomas 
Calendrino,  a  Sicilian,  because  he  assisted  in  the  escape  from 
Benevento  of  a  contumacious  person.  He  was  carried  to  the 
Archbishop  of  Naples  and  placed  on  the  papal  galleys  for  trans- 
mission to  Rome,  but  the  Neapolitan  spirit  was  rising  again  and 
the  Collaterale  and  Junta  de  Jurisdicion  called  on  Viceroy  Alba 
to  demand  his  surrender  under  threat  of  not  allowing  the  galleys 

1  Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII. 
1  Ibidem. 


STRUGGLE  WITH  ROME  95 

to  depart  and  of  banishing  Fra  Petronio  within  24  hours.  Alba 
however  conferred  with  the  nuncio  and  archbishop,  who  assured 
him  that  it  was  customary  to  arrest  and  send  people  to  Rome 
without  notice  to  him.  In  this  perplexity  Alba  referred  the  matter 
to  his  master  Philip  IV,  who  warmly  praised  his  prudence  in  so 
doing.  The  papal  nuncio  at  Madrid,  he  said,  had  received  orders 
from  Rome  to  protest  against  the  attempted  innovation  of  requir- 
ing notice  to  the  viceroy  and  he  therefore  ordered  Alba,  as  the 
matter  was  of  the  highest  importance,  to  investigate  precedents  of 
persons  arrested  with  or  without  notice,  and  not  to  introduce  any 
novelty.  What  was  the  ultimate  result  as  respects  Calendrino 
does  not  appear,  but  this  nerveless  way  of  treating  the  matter 
was  not  calculated  to  check  the  insolence  of  Fra  Petronio  who,  in 
the  course  of  the  affair,  excommunicated  the  judges  Calefano  and 
Osorio,  summoned  the  auditor  Figueroa  to  present  himself  to 
the  Roman  Inquisition  and  finally  arrested  him  with  his  own 
armed  sbirri.  This  was  no  novelty,  for  he  had  no  scruple  in 
imprisoning  and  maltreating  royal  officials  for  executing  orders 
of  the  government.1 

Philip  was  accustomed  to  allow  his  own  officials  to  be  thus 
abused  by  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  but  the  Neapolitan  temper 
was  stubborn  and,  in  1630,  the  Collateral  reminded  Fra  Petronio 
that  all  commissions  to  arrest  required  the  exequatur;  it  ordered 
him  to  present  within  three  days  all  that  he  had  received  from 
Rome,  and  moreover  forbade  him  to  keep  armed  retainers.  It 
made  complaints  to  the  king  and  to  the  Spanish  ambassador  at 
Rome,  while  Urban  VIII  issued  briefs  defending  him,  under  which 
encouragement  he  continued  his  arbitrary  methods.  At  length 
Philip,  by  a  letter  of  March  18,  1631,  ordered  that  no  papal  brief 
should  be  executed  without  the  exequatur;  a  new  viceroy,  the 
Count  of  Monterey,  was  prompted  to  defend  the  royal  jurisdiction 
and  Fra  Petronio  complained  to  Rome  that  the  aid  of  the  secular 
arm  was  withheld  unless  he  would  state  the  names  of  those  whom 
he  desired  to  imprison.  The  pope  appealed  to  Philip  IV,  who 

1  Chioccarello  MSS.,  T.  VIII.— Amabile,  Inquisizione  in  Napoli,  II,  35. 


96  NAPLES 

apparently  had  forgotten  about  the  matter  and,  in  a  letter  of 
November  27,  1632,  asked  for  explanations.  Then  Fra  Petronio 
commenced  taking  evidence  against  the  auditor  Brandolino,  but 
when  the  Collaterale  deliberated,  January  31,  1633,  on  a  propo- 
sition to  banish  him,  he  yielded.  Monterey  negotiated  with  Rome 
to  have  him  replaced  with  some  one  less  objectionable  and  also 
that  the  new  incumbent  should  not  hold  a  tribunal  but  should 
only  report  to  the  Congregation  the  cases  occurring.  Urban  VIII 
offered  to  appoint  any  one  whom  they  might  select,  and  when 
the  name  was  presented  of  Antonio  Ricciullo,  Bishop  of  Belcastro, 
then  their  ambassador  at  Rome,  he  was  duly  commissioned.1 

There  was  nothing  gained  by  the  change.  Ricciullo  styled 
himself  inquisitor-general;  he  held  a  tribunal  and  in  his  time  con- 
demned four  clerics  for  functioning  without  priest's  orders — three 
strangled  and  burnt  in  public,  and  one  strangled  privately.  The 
pope  ordered  that  the  Dominican  convent  should  serve  as  an 
inquisitorial  prison  and  its  prior  should  be  a  consultor,  and  thus 
after  a  struggle  of  nearly  a  century  the  papal  Inquisition  was 
fairly  established  in  Naples.2 

Ricciullo  died,  May  17,  1642,  and  was  succeeded  by  Felice 
Tamburello,  Bishop  of  Sora.  He  died  in  1656  and  was  replaced 
temporarily  by  the  nuncio  Giulio  Spinola,  who  served  until  1659, 
when  Camillo  Piazza,  Bishop  of  Dragona  was  appointed.  That 
Naples  should  be  impatient  at  finding  itself  thus  gradually  and 
imperceptibly  brought  under  the  yoke  of  the  papal  Inquisition 
was  natural.  The  turbulent  city  had  gallantly  resisted,  at  no 
little  cost  to  itself,  the  imposition  of  the  Spanish  Holy  Office, 
through  times  in  which  unity  of  faith  was  seriously  threatened  by 
successive  heresies.  Now  all  such  danger  was  past.  There  were 
no  Cathari  or  Waldenses  or  Protestants  to  rend  in  Italy  the  seam- 
less garment  of  the  Church  and  the  period  was  one  of  spiritual 
apathy,  wholly  averse  to  proselytism.  Only  the  unappeasable 
longing  of  Rome  to  make  its  power  manifest  everywhere  could 
explain  its  persistence  in  thus  insinuating  the  abhorred  juris- 

1  Amabile,  II,  35-6.  »  Ibidem,  II,  37-9. 


HARDSHIPS  OF  THE  INQUISITION  97 

diction  in  a  city  which  prided  itself  on  its  piety,  on  the  number 
of  churches  and  convents  which  impoverished  it,  on  the  obe- 
dience of  the  people  to  the  priesthood  and  on  the  strictness  of  its 
religious  observance.  The  only  field  of  inquisitorial  activity  lay 
in  reckless  speeches  which  might  savor  of  irreligion,  in  the  blas- 
phemy through  which  anger  or  despair  found  expression,  in  the 
superstitious  arts  of  wise-women,  in  burning  clerics  who  admin- 
istered sacraments  without  having  received  the  requisite  orders 
and  in  such  offences  as  bigamy  and  seduction  in  the  confessional, 
all  of  which  could  only  by  a  strained  construction  be  deemed  as 
savoring  of  heresy,  and  could  readily  be  disposed  of  by  the 
ordinary  spiritual  or  secular  courts.  The  Holy  Office  was  a 
manifest  superfluity  and  its  imposition  was  all  the  more  galling. 

Nor  was  there  any  alleviation  in  the  fact  that  the  tribunal  was 
papal  and  not  Spanish,  for  there  was  nothing  to  choose  between 
them,  in  spite  of  frequent  appeals  to  the  pledge  of  Philip  II  that 
the  via  ordinaria  alone  should  be  observed.  There  were  the  same 
confiscation  and  impoverishment  of  families.  There  were  the 
same  travesty  of  justice  and  denial  of  rightful  defence  to  the  ac- 
cused. There  were  the  same  secrecy  of  procedure  and  withholding 
from  the  prisoner  the  names  of  his  accuser  and  of  the  witnesses. 
There  was  the  same  readiness  to  accept  the  denunciations  and 
testimony  of  the  vilest,  who  could  be  heard  in  no  other  court,  but 
who,  in  the  Inquisition,  could  gratify  malignity,  secure  that  they 
would  remain  unknown.  There  was  even  greater  freedom  in  the 
use  of  torture,  as  the  habitual  solvent  of  all  doubts,  whether  as  to 
fact  or  intention.  There  were  the  same  prolonged  and  heart- 
breaking delays  during  which  the  accused  was  secluded  from  all 
communication  with  the  outside  world.  A  careless  speech  over- 
heard and  distorted  by  an  enemy— or  perhaps  invented  by  him — 
sufficed  to  cast  a  man  into  the  secret  prison,  where  he  might  lie 
for  four  or  five  years,  while  his  trial  proceeded  leisurely  and  his 
family  might  starve.  It  would  probably  end  in  his  torture,  to 
make  him  confess  if  he  denied  the  utterance,  or  to  ascertain  his 
intention  if  he  admitted  and  sought  to  explain  it.  If  he  suc- 
7 


98  NAPLES 

cumbed  in  the  torture  he  was  subjected  to  a  humiliating  penance, 
to  wearing  the  habitello  and  to  infamy — probably  also  to  confis- 
cation. If  his  endurance  in  the  torture-chamber  enabled  him  to 
"purge  the  evidence/'  as  the  legists  phrased  it,  he  was  discharged 
with  a  verdict  of  not  proven,  with  nothing  to  make  amends  for 
his  sufferings  and  wasted  years.  Such  was  the  fate  which  hung 
over  every  citizen  and  it  was  felt  acutely.1  How  little  was  re- 
quired to  arouse  inquisitorial  vigilance  was  shown  in  1683,  when 
Agostino  Mazza,  a  priest  employed  in  teaching  philosophy,  was 
thrown  in  prison  by  the  Commissioner  of  the  Inquisition  and 
humiliated  by  having  to  abjure  in  public  two  abstract  propositions 
which  to  the  ordinary  mind  have  the  least  possible  bearing  on 
the  faith — "The  definition  of  man  is  not  that  he  is  a  reasoning 
animal"  and  "Brutes  have  a  kind  of  imperfect  reason."2  The 
human  intellect  evidently  had  small  chance  of  development  under 
such  conditions. 

It  is  easy  therefore  to  understand  the  growing  uneasiness  of 
the  people  when  they  saw  the  commissioner,  Monsignor  Piazza, 
appointed  in  1659,  gradually  erect  a  formal  inquisitorial  tribunal, 
with  a  fiscal  and  other  customary  officials  and  a  corps  of  armed 


1  These  feelings  are  warmly  but  respectfully  expressed  in  a  memorial  addressed 
to  Innocent  XII  (1691-1700),  by  Giuseppe  Valletta,  an  advocate  of  Naples,  in 
support  of  envoys  sent  to  negotiate  with  him  (MS.  penes  me). 

It  is  difficult  for  us  to  estimate  the  horror  which,  as  the  inquisitors  boasted,  the 
Holy  Office  cast  over  the  population.  They  relate  with  pride  that  in  Spain  men 
cited  to  appear,  even  on  matters  not  pertaining  to  the  faith,  but  ignorant  of  the 
cause,  were  known  to  take  to  their  beds  and  die  of  sheer  terror.  How  much 
greater,  then,  they  ask,  must  be  the  horror  of  those  accused,  suddenly  arrested 
and  cast  into  the  strictest  and  most  secret  prison,  not  to  mention  what  followed  ? — 
"  Sola  simplici  vocatione  alicujus  inquisitoris  in  Hispania,  ait  Morillus  citatus,  per 
aliquem  ejus  ministrum,  ad  negotium  forte  particulare  non  pertinens  ad  Inqui- 
sitionem  Fidei,  absque  eo  quod  vocati  sciant  ad  quid  vocentur,  adeo  perterrefieri 
homines  soleant,  ut  aliquibus  statim  necessario  decumbere  et  prae  nimio  dolore 
febri  superveniente  emori  contigerit.  At  quid  in  casibus  ubi  datur  prseventio  per 
accusationem  aut  denuntiationem  et  agitur  de  repentina  captura  et  de  carcera- 
tione  rigidissima  ac  secretissima,  ut  taceam  de  aliis  quae  hanc  consequuntur, 
quanto  magis  perterrefiant  capti  et  carcerati?  quanto  maiori  horrore  afficientur?" 
— Salelles,  De  Materiis  Tribunalium  S.  Inquisitionis,  Proleg.  iv,  n.  8  (Romae,  1651). 

9  Capasso,  Ragionamenti  ad  istanza  degl*  Eccml  Sigrl  della  Citta  di  Napoli 
(MS.  penes  me). 


STRUGGLE  WITH  ROME  99 

familiars,  recruited,  as  we  are  told,  from  the  lowest  class  of  the 
population.  His  activity  was  such  that  he  constructed  eight 
prisons  in  as  many  convents,  where  even  women  were  confined, 
without  respect  to  rank  or  condition,  under  the  guardianship  of 
the  frati.  He  celebrated  atti  di  fede  in  public,  where  abjurations 
were  administered,  followed  by  scourgings  through  the  streets, 
and  he  levied  on  the  resources  of  the  Regular  Orders  to  defray  the 
expenses  of  his  court.  Indignation  gathered  and,  on  April  2, 1661, 
the  Piazze  ordered  their  representative  body,  the  Capitolo  di  San 
Lorenzo,  to  consider  the  innovations  of  the  commissioner.  The 
aspect  of  the  people  grew  threatening  and  Count  Penaranda,  the 
viceroy,  ordered  Monsignor  Piazza  to  leave  the  kingdom,  which 
he  did  on  April  10th,  under  escort  of  a  troop  of  horse  to  assure  his 
safety.  This  did  not  appease  the  deputies  who,  on  May  18th, 
presented  a  memorial  to  the  viceroy,  in  which  they  further  drew 
attention  to  the  subject  of  confiscation  and  asked  that  the  pro- 
hibitory bull  of  Julius  III,  in  1554,  should  be  enforced.  Consul- 
tations and  negotiations  were  long  continued  during  which  discus- 
sion became  so  hot  that  Penaranda  threw  some  of  the  deputies  in 
prison,  but,  on  October  24th,  he  announced  that  Philip  IV  had 
decided  that  the  grant  of  Philip  II  must  be  maintained  and  the 
via  ordinaria  alone  must  be  followed.  Nothing  was  said  as 
to  the  abandonment  of  confiscation  and  efforts  to  procure  it  were 
protracted,  but  without  success.1 

If  the  Neapolitans  flattered  themselves  that  they  had  obtained 
release  from  the  odious  institution,  they  were  mistaken.  Rome 
continued  to  send  commissioners  and  they  continued  to  disregard 
the  privileges  of  the  kingdom.  Another  outbreak  occurred  in 
1691  when,  under  orders  from  the  Roman  Congregation,  its  com- 
missioner— Giovanni  Giberti,  Bishop  of  Cava — seized  several 
persons  without  obtaining  the  exequatur  of  the  viceroy.  The 

1  Pietro  de  Fusco,  Per  la  fidelissima  Citta  di  Napoli,  negli  affari  della  Santa 
Inquisizione  (MS.  penes  me). — Amabile,  II,  41-52. — Giannone,  Lib.  xxxn,  cap.  5. 

Pietro  de  Fusco  tells  us  that  confiscations  were  not  infrequently  released,  as 
they  were  in  1587  to  the  children  of  Francesco  di  Aloes  di  Caserta  and  to  the  heirs 
of  Bernardino  Gargano  d'Aversa,  although  they  died  as  impenitent  heretics. 


100  NAPLES 

Collaterale,  or  Council,  notified  him  that  there  was  no  Inquisition 
in  Naples  and  that  the  prisoners  must  be  transferred  to  the  archi- 
episcopal  prison,  under  pain  of  legal  proceedings  against  him. 
He  treated  with  contempt  the  notary  who  bore  this  message  and 
threatened  him  with  the  savage  penalties  provided  for  impeding 
the  Inquisition,  in  response  to  which  the  Collaterale  hustled  him 
out  of  the  kingdom,  barely  allowing  him  time  to  perform  quaran- 
tine at  Gaeta.  Innocent  XII  felt  this  keenly,  for  he  was  a  Nea- 
politan and  had  been  Archbishop  of  Naples,  and  a  warm  corre- 
spondence ensued  with  the  Spanish  court.  It  was  claimed  by  the 
curia  that  the  pope  was  omnipotent  in  matters  of  faith;  that  he 
could  abrogate  local  laws  and  enact  new  ones  at  his  pleasure, 
while  the  papal  nuncio  at  Madrid  warned  the  king  that  Naples 
would  be  given  over  to  atheism  without  the  Inquisition  and  the 
whole  vast  monarchy  of  Spain  might  be  destroyed.  The  city  of 
Naples  was  equally  vigorous  in  asserting  its  rights  and  complained 
of  the  numerous  officials  of  the  commissioner,  exempted  from 
secular  jurisdiction  and  committing  scandals  with  impunity.  The 
pope  threatened  an  interdict  and  the  Piazze  threatened  to  rise; 
the  latter  danger  was  to  Carlos  II  the  most  imminent  and,  in  1692, 
he  prohibited  all  further  residence  in  Naples  of  papal  delegates  or 
commissioners.  To  render  secure  the  fruits  of  this  victory,  the 
Piazze  took  the  decided  step  of  appointing  a  permanent  deputation 
whose  duty  it  was  to  guard  the  city  from  further  dangers  of  the 
same  nature.1 

If  again  the  good  people  of  Naples  imagined  that  they  had  at 
last  shaken  off  the  dreaded  Holy  Office  they  underrated  the  per- 
sistence of  Rome.  Trials  for  heresy  continued  in  the  archiepisco- 
pal  court,  conducted  in  inquisitorial  fashion  and  not  by  the  via 
ordinaria.  This  caused  renewed  dissatisfaction  and,  in  hopes  of 
reaching  some  terms  of  accommodation,  envoys  were  sent  to  Rome 
in  1693  to  ask  that  the  procedure  should  be  open,  the  names  of  the 
witnesses  and  the  testimony  being  communicated  to  the  accused; 

1  MSS.  of  Library  of  Univ.  of  Halle,  Yc,  Tom.  XVII.— Amabile,  II,  54-58.— 
MSS.  of  Royal  Library  of  Munich,  Cod.  Ital.,  189,  fol.  327;  209,  fol.  111-138. 


THE  EDICT  OF  DENUNCIATION  101 

that  no  one  should  be  imprisoned  without  competent  proof  against 
him;  that  the  city  should  be  allowed  to  supply  an  advocate  for 
the  poor  and  that  two  lay  assistants  should  be  appointed  to  see 
that  these  provisions  were  enforced.  Prolonged  discussions  fol- 
lowed, the  cardinals  entrusted  with  the  matter  seeking  to  gain 
readmission  for  the  commissioner  and  arguing  that  the  bishops 
were  mostly  unfit  to  exercise  the  jurisdiction.1  There  was  little 
prospect  of  reaching  an  agreement  when  Naples  was  startled  with 
a  wholly  novel  aggression.  February  1, 1695,  there  was  published 
in  Rome  by  the  Inquisition  an  Edict  of  Denunciation  which,  under 
its  orders,  was  similarly  published  in  at  least  one  of  the  Neapolitan 
dioceses.  Such  edicts  were  issued  annually  in  Spain,  but  in 
Naples  they  were  unknown  and  the  present  one  was  evidently 
intended  for  that  kingdom,  for  it  included  the  episcopal  ordinaries 
as  well  as  inquisitors,  as  the  parties  to  whom  every  one  was 
required,  under  pain  of  excommunication  latce  sententice,  remov- 
able only  by  the  Inquisition,  and  other  penalties,  to  denounce 
whatever  cases  might  come  in  any  way  to  his  cognizance,  of  a  list 
of  offences  ranging  from  apostasy  to  bigamy,  blasphemy  and 
sorcery.  The  Deputati  took  the  matter  up  in  a  long  memorial 
addressed  to  the  Collaterale,  pointing  out  the  invasion  of  the 
prerogative  in  publishing  the  edict  without  the  necessary  exequa- 
tur and  the  evils  to  be  expected  from  converting  the  population 
into  spies  and  creating  a  universal  feeling  of  insecurity.  There 
was  also  the  fact  that  the  edict  assumed  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Inquisition  over  Naples,  that  it  made  the  bishops  its  agents, 
authorized  as  its  deputies  to  employ  the  inquisitorial  process, 
and  that  it  comprised  not  only  offences  which  the  Neapolitans 
contended  to  belong  to  the  secular  courts  but  a  general  clause, 
vaguely  embracing  whatever  else  might  be  claimed  as  subject  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Holy  Office.2 

This  shrewd  device  of  the  Roman  Inquisition  was  successful. 
The  bishops  to  a  considerable  extent  exercised  the  powers  dele- 

1  Amabile,  II,  59-72;  Append.,  68,  71. 

2  Acarapora,  Ragioni  a  pro  della  Fidelissima  Citta  di  Napoli  (Napoli,  1709). 


102  NAPLES 

gated  to  them  and  the  Deputati  found  constant  occupation  in 
endeavoring  to  protect  those  whom  they  imprisoned  and  tried 
by  inquisitorial  methods.  Then  came  the  troublous  times  of  the 
War  of  Succession  which  followed  the  death  of  Carlos  II  in  1700. 
After  a  fruitless  struggle  Philip  V  was  obliged  to  abandon  Naples 
in  1707  to  his  rival,  Charles  of  Austria,  and  during  the  interval 
the  Inquisition  succeeded  in  re-introducing  a  commissioner,  who 
made  free  use  of  his  powers.  The  new  monarch  sought  to  secure 
the  loyalty  of  his  subjects  and  from  Barcelona  sent  orders  to  his 
viceroy,  Cardinal  Grimani  to  support  the  Deputati  in  their  efforts 
to  uphold  the  privileges  of  the  kingdom.  In  spite  of  this  the 
Deputati  were  obliged  to  appeal  to  him,  in  a  petition  of  July  31, 
1709,  representing  that,  after  the  publication  of  his  despatch  to 
Grimani,  the  ecclesiastics  proceeded  to  the  greatest  imaginable 
oppressions  and  violence,  so  that  their  condition  was  worse  than 
ever,  wherefore  they  prayed  for  relief  at  his  hands,  so  that  trials 
should  be  conducted  in  the  via  ordinaria.  To  this  Charles  replied, 
September  15th,  to  Grimani,  commanding  that  matters  of  faith 
should  be  confined  strictly  to  the  bishops,  to  be  handled  by  the 
via  ordinaria;  any  departure  from  this  was  to  be  severely 
punished  and  the  authorities  were  to  use  the  whole  royal  power, 
through  whatever  means  were  necessary,  for  the  enforcement  of 
his  orders.1 

This  won  as  little  obedience  as  the  previous  royal  utterance 
and  the  Deputati  were  kept  busy  in  attending  to  the  cases  of 
those  who  suffered  from  the  persistent  employment  of  inquisitorial 
methods — efforts  which  were  sometimes  successful  but  more  fre- 
quently in  vain.  It  was  probably  some  special  outrage  that 
induced  the  Deputati,  in  1711,  to  employ  Nicolo  Capasso  to  draw 
up  a  report  on  inquisitorial  methods.  The  work  is  a  storehouse  of 
inquisitorial  principles  as  set  forth  by  accredited  inquisitorial 
authorities — papal  decretals  and  manuals  of  practice  such  as 
those  of  Eymerich,  Pena,  Simancas,  Albertino,  Rojas,  the  Sacro 
Arsenale  etc.,  admirably  calculated  to  excite  abhorrence  by  laying 

1  Amabile,  II,  74-80.— Acampora,  op.  cit. 


EPISCOPAL  INQUISITION  103 

bare  the  complete  denial  of  justice  in  every  step  of  procedure,  the 
pitiless  cruelty  of  the  system  and  the  manner  in  which  the  lives, 
the  fortunes  and  the  honor  of  every  citizen  were  at  the  mercy  of 
the  malignant  and  of  the  temper  of  the  tribunal.  Yet  so  far  from 
being  an  advocate  of  toleration,  Capasso  commences  by  arguing 
against  it  at  much  length.  Religion,  he  says,  is  the  foundation  of 
social  order  and  the  principle  of  toleration  infers  toleration  of 
irreligion.  Protestants  are  intolerant  between  themselves  and 
the  Catholic  system  cannot  endure  toleration.  That  which  is 
taught  by  the  philosophers  is  chimerical,  and  a  community  to  be 
stable  must  be  united  in  faith,  but  the  enforcement  of  this  unity 
is  a  matter  for  the  secular  power.  Punishment  must  be  corporal 
and  the  Church  has  authority  over  the  spirit  alone,  not  over  the 
body.  An  allusion  to  the  gravissime  agitazioni  of  the  people  would 
indicate  that  his  labors  were  called  forth  by  some  action  which 
had  aroused  especial  resentment.1 

It  was  all  in  vain.  By  the  death  of  his  brother  Joseph  I, 
Charles  VI  succeeded  to  the  empire  in  1711.  Wars  and  other 
interests  diverted  his  attention  from  Naples  and,  though  he  con- 
sistently resisted  the  pressure  from  Rome  to  give  the  Inquisition 
recognition,  the  bishops  continued  to  exercise  inquisitorial  juris- 
diction in  inquisitorial  fashion.  The  Deputati  did  what  they 
could,  but  the  success  of  their  efforts  depended  upon  the  uncer- 
tain temper  of  the  successive  imperial  viceroys,  who,  though  they 
might  sometimes  manifest  a  spasmodic  readiness  to  enforce  the 
royal  decrees,  did  not  countervail  the  persistent  ecclesiastical 
determination  to  wield  the  power  afforded  by  inquisitorial 
methods.2 

1  Ragionamenti  del  Sig.  D.  Niccolo  Capasso  colli  quali  ad  istanza  degF  Eccmi 
Sigrl  della  Citt&  di  Napoli  prova  non  doversi  ricevere  in  questo  Religiosissimo 
Regno  1'odioso  Tribunals  dell'  Inquisizione. 

I  am  not  aware  that  this  work  has  ever  been  printed,  but  it  must  have  had 
a  considerable  circulation  in  MS.  I  have  three  copies,  of  which  one  is  a  Latin 
version.  In  one  of  them  the  prefatory  address  to  the  Deputati  is  dated  Decem- 
ber 3,  1711,  which  fixes  the  time  of  its  composition.  The  other  copies  were  made 
respectively  in  1715  and  1717,  indicating  that  it  continued  to  be  referred  to. 

s  Amabile,  II,  81-3, 


104  NAPLES 

A  change  was  at  hand  when,  in  1734,  Carlo  VII  (better  known 
as  Carlos  III  of  Spain)  drove  the  Austrians  out  of  Naples  and 
assumed  the  throne.  The  kingdom,  after  two  centuries  of  vice- 
royalties,  at  last  had  a  resident  monarch  of  its  own,  anxious  to  win 
the  affection  of  his  new  subjects  and  inclined,  as  his  subsequent 
career  showed,  to  curb  exorbitant  ecclesiastical  pretensions.  His 
royal  oath  included  a  pledge  to  observe  the  privileges  of  the  land, 
including  those  concerning  the  Inquisition  granted  by  his  prede- 
cessor. Apparently  for  some  years  there  was  hesitation  in  testing 
the  quality  of  the  new  regime,  but  in  1738  and  1739,  as  though  by 
concerted  action  under  orders  from  Rome,  Cardinal  Spinelli,  the 
Archbishop  of  Naples,  and  various  bishops  throughout  the  king- 
dom, undertook  prosecutions  in  the  prohibited  fashion.  Com- 
plaints reached  the  Deputati,  who  appealed  to  the  king.  He 
reproached  them  for  negligence,  ordered  the  proceedings  stopped 
and  the  processes  to  be  sent  to  Naples,  and  gave  to  Spinelli  a  warn- 
ing that  such  irregularities  would  not  be  permitted.  Undeterred 
by  this,  the  episcopal  Inquisition  continued  at  work  and  in  1743 
three  bishops,  of  Nusco,  Ortono  and  Cassano,  were  called  to  account; 
the  papers  of  trials  held  by  them  were  examined  and  pronounced 
irregular;  in  one  case  the  Bishop  of  Nusco  had  cruelly  tortured  a 
parish  priest  named  Gaetano  de  Arco,  after  holding  him  in  prison 
for  eight  months.1 

It  seems  incredible  that  under  such  circumstances  ecclesiastical 
persistence  should  defiantly  call  public  attention  to  its  disregard 
of  the  laws,  yet  on  September  26,  1746,  the  octave  of  San  Gennaro 
— a  time  when  the  popular  afflux  to  the  churches  was  greatest — 
an  atto  di  fede,  conducted  according  to  inquisitorial  practice,  was 
celebrated  in  the  archiepiscopal  church,  where  a  Sicilian  priest 
named  Antonio  Nava  abjured  certain  errors  and  was  condemned 
to  perpetual  irremissible  prison.  Popular  indignation  was  aroused, 
the  cry  arose  that  Spinelli  was  endeavoring  to  introduce  the 
Inquisition  and  he  was  insulted  in  his  carriage  by  crowds  as  he 


1  Amabile,  II,  84-5.— Consulta  dalla  Real  Camera  de  S.  Chiara  alia  MaesU  del 
Re  per  il  Santo  Uffizio,  Dec.  19,  1746  (MS.  penes  me), 


EPISCOPAL  INQUISITION  105 

drove  through  the  streets.  The  Deputati  represented  to  the  king 
that  they  had  been  appealed  to  by  three  prisoners  whose  trials 
were  not  conducted  by  the  via  ordinaria,  showing  that  the  eccle- 
siastics were  seeking  to  impose  the  abhorred  Inquisition  on  the 
kingdom.  Spinelli  protested  that  the  trials  were  open  and  accord- 
ing to  the  via  ordinaria  and  that  he  was  ready  to  obey  whatever 
commands  he  might  receive  from  the  king.  Carlos  sent  all  the 
papers  to  his  council,  known  as  the  Camera  di  Santa  Chiara,  with 
orders  to  investigate  and  report. 

The  Camera  made  a  thorough  examination  and  reported,  De- 
cember 19th,  that  Nava  had  lain  in  prison  since  April,  1741; 
another  prisoner,  a  layman  named  Trascogna,  had  been  incarcer- 
ated for  three  years  and  his  trial  was  yet  unfinished ;  the  third,  a 
deacon  named  Angelo  Petriello,  was  accused  of  celebrating  mass  on 
July  24th  last  and  was  about  to  put  in  his  defence.  The  arch- 
bishop argued  that,  unlike  his  predecessors,  he  did  not  conceal  the 
witnesses'  names  and  therefore  the  process  was  the  ordinary  one,  but 
investigation  showed  that  in  other  respects  inquisitorial  practice 
was  followed  and  inquisitorial  authorities  were  cited;  during  the 
trial  the  prisoner  was  kept  incomunicado  in  his  cell  and  debarred 
from  all  communication  with  the  outside  world.  In  the  papers 
the  expression  "Tribunale  della  Santa  Fede"  was  constantly  used; 
in  the  marble  lintel  of  the  door  leading  to  the  rooms  occupied  by 
it  the  words  "  Sanctum  Officium"  were  cut  and  the  part  of  the 
prison  used  by  it  was  called  "del  Sant'  Ofncio."  It  had  a  full 
corps  of  special  officials  and  in  a  passage-way  there  had  been  for 
five  or  six  years  a  tablet  bearing  their  names  and  positions,  with 
the  inscription  "Inquisitori  del  Tribunale  del  S.  Uffizio."  It  also 
had  a  seal  different  from  that  of  the  court  of  the  Ordinary,  bear- 
ing for  device  two  hands,  one  of  St.  Peter  with  the  key,  the  other 
of  St.  Paul  with  a  naked  sword  and  the  legend  "  Sanctum  Officium 
Archiep.  Neap."  The  Camera  thence  concluded  that  it  was  the 
old  Inquisition  under  various  devices  and  only  awaiting  an  oppor- 
tunity to  establish  itself  openly,  as  was  shown  by  the  occurrences 
in  1691;  1711  and  1739  and,  as  it  was  impossible  to  place  reliance 


106  NAPLES 

on  the  promises  of  ecclesiastics,  so  often  made  and  broken,  it 
advised  that  all  the  officials  of  the  pretended  Tribunal  of  Faith 
should  be  banished  as  disturbers  of  the  public  peace;  the  three 
processes  should  be  sealed  and  filed  away  in  the  public  archives, 
the  accused  should  be  restored  to  their  original  position  and  be 
tried  again  by  the  via  ordinaria.  Everything  connected  with  the 
Tribunal  should  be  abolished — officials,  prison,  seal  and  inscrip- 
tion— and  notice  be  given  that  any  one  in  future  assuming  such 
offices  would  incur  the  royal  indignation.  All  spiritual  courts 
should  be  notified  that,  in  actions  of  the  faith  against  either  clerics 
or  laymen,  before  arrest  the  informations  must  be  laid  before  the 
king  for  his  assent  and  before  sentence  the  whole  process,  so  as  to 
make  sure  that  there  were  no  irregularities.  The  accused  while 
in  prison  must  have  full  liberty  of  writing  and  talking  to  whom 
he  pleased  and  be  furnished  with  an  advocate  chosen  by  the 
Deputati  or  the  Camera.  To  protect  the  laity  against  prosecu- 
tions for  simple  sorcery  or  blasphemy  or  other  matters  not  sub- 
ject to  spiritual  jurisdiction,  the  nature  of  the  alleged  crime  must 
be  clearly  expressed  when  applying  for  licence  to  arrest.1 

These  suggestions  were  promptly  adopted  and  were  embodied 
in  a  royal  decree  of  December  29th,  by  which  two  of  the  officials 


1  Consulta  dalla  Real  Camera  de  S.  Chiara  alia  Maesta  del  Re  per  il  Santo 
Uffizio  (MS.  penes  me). 

That  the  Neapolitan  Government  was  not  actuated  by  any  tenderness  towards 
heresy  is  manifested  in  a  singular  transaction  of  the  period  detailed  in  a  letter  of 
which  I  have  copy,  of  July  11,  1746,  from  Edward  Allen,  the  British  Consul,  to 
the  Marchese  Fogliani — apparently  the  foreign  secretary.  An  English  girl  of 
13,  named  Ellen  Bowes,  was  forcibly  abducted  from  her  father's  house,  after 
surrounding  it  with  about  a  hundred  armed  men.  Against  this  outrage  the  consul 
protested  as  a  violation  of  the  privileges  of  the  English  nation,  to  which  Fogliani 
replied,  explaining  the  reasons  which  had  led  the  king  to  do  this  and  what  was 
proposed  to  do  with  the  child.  Apparently  she  had  expressed  an  intention  to 
join  the  Catholic  Church  and  had  been  taken  so  as  to  secure  her  conversion. 
Allen  rejoined  in  a  long  argumentative  letter  and,  although  he  pointed  out  that 
a  child  of  such  tender  age  could  have  no  conception  of  the  different  religions,  he 
felt  himself  obliged  to  disavow  asking  her  return  to  her  parents  and  limited  his 
request  to  having  her  delivered  to  some  one  of  the  English  nation,  where  she 
could  be  examined  as  to  her  motives.  What  was  the  issue  of  the  affair  does  not 
appear  from  the  paper  in  my  possession,  but  evidently  the  king,  after  taking  such 
a  step  and  justifying  it,  could  not  well  retreat, 


SUPPRESSION  107 

were  banished  within  eight  days  and  similar  punishment  was 
threatened  for  any  future  attempt  to  exercise  such  functions.  By 
January  5,  1747,  the  Marchese  Brancone,  under  royal  order,  was 
able  to  report  to  the  Deputati  that  the  seal  and  commissions  had 
been  surrendered,  the  inscription  over  the  door  had  been  changed 
to  "Archivium"  and  the  name  of  the  prison  altered  to  prisons  of 
S.  Francesco  and  S.  Paolo.  Archbishop  Spinelli  was  compelled 
to  resign  and,  when  Benedict  XIV  sent  Cardinal  Landi  to  Naples 
to  seek  some  method  of  re-establishing  the  tribunal,  he  was  in 
danger  of  being  mobbed  and  was  obliged  to  return  without  having 
secured  an  official  audience.  Thus  the  Inquisition  ceased  to  have 
a  recognized  existence  in  Naples;  the  rejoicing  was  general  and,  as 
an  expression  of  its  gratitude,  the  city  made  a  voluntary  offering 
to  Carlos  of  three  hundred  thousand  ducats.  Yet  the  Deputati 
did  not  disband;  taught  by  past  experience  they  kept  vigilant 
watch  to  see  that  the  detested  institution  or  its  methods  were  not 
smuggled  in  and  that  the  ecclesiastical  courts  observed  the  new 
rules.  Carlos  was  called  to  the  throne  of  Spain  in  1759,  by  the 
death  of  his  half-brother  Fernando  VI,  leaving  Naples  to  his  young 
son,  Ferdinando  IV.  Possibly  it  may  have  been  thought  that  dur- 
ing a  minority  there  was  an  opportunity  to  revive  the  institution 
for,  in  1761,  the  Deputati  made  an  appeal  to  the  king.  The  Regent 
Tanucci  was  not  a  man  to  relinquish  the  advantage  gained.  The 
decree  of  1746  was  again  sent  to  all  prelates  with  commands  that 
it  be  strictly  obeyed  and  the  royal  thanks  were  conveyed  to  the 
Deputati  for  their  vigilance,  which  they  were  ordered  not  to  relax.1 
They  heeded  the  injunction  and,  in  1764,  they  addressed  to  the 
king  a  memorial  on  the  case  of  Padre  Leopoldo  di  S.  Pasquale,  a 
Bare-footed  Augustinian,  who  had  been  tried  by  his  brethren  on 
charges  of  financial  irregularities  and  unchastity.  Inquisitorial 
procedure  had  been  employed,  no  opportunity  for  defence  had 
been  allowed  and,  for  seven  years,  the  unfortunate  friar  had  been 


1  Lettera  circolare  del  Marchese  Fraggiani,  Napoli,  1761. — Beccatini,  Istoria 
della  Inquisizione,  pp.  372-77,  382  (Milano,  1797). — Amabile,  op.  cit.,  II,  104-5; 
Appendice,  80. 


108  NAPLES 

subjected  by  his  superiors  to  a  series  of  inhuman  cruelties.1  What 
was  the  result  I  have  no  means  of  ascertaining,  but  this  prolonged 
vigilance  indicates  the  profound  and  enduring  impression  enter- 
tained of  the  Inquisition  by  the  Neapolitans. 


1  Supplica  al  Re  nostro  Signore  de'  Deputati  por  opporsi  ai  pregindizj  del  S. 
Officio.  Sine  nota  sed  Napoli,  1764. — Le  Bret,  Magazin  zum  Gebrauch  der 
Staaten-  und  Kirchengeschicte,  III,  160  (Frankfurt,  1773). 


CHAPTER    III. 

SARDINIA. 

As  the  island  of  Sardinia  was  a  possession  of  the  crown  of 
Aragon,  it  was  not  neglected  in  organizing  the  Inquisition.  There 
were  Conversos  there  and  doubtless  in  the  earliest  period  it  served 
as  a  refuge  for  some  of  those  who  fled  from  Spain.  The  introduc- 
tion of  the  Holy  Office  is  probably  to  be  attributed  to  the  year 
1492,  when  Micer  Sancho  Maria  was  appointed  inquisitor.1  He 
served  until  1497,  for  a  letter  of  December  15th  of  that  year, 
from  Ferdinand  to  Miguel  Fonte,  receiver  of  Sardinia,  recites 
that  the  inquisitors-general  have  appointed  Maestre  Gabriel 
Cardona,  rector  of  Peniscola,  as  inquisitor  in  place  of  Sancho 
Marin,  transferred  to  Sicily,  and  it  proceeds  to  give  instructions 
as  to  salaries,  from  which  we  learn  that  the  organization  was  on 
a  most  economical  scale.  There  was,  as  yet,  no  settled  habitation 
for  it,  as  a  letter  of  March  11,  1498,  to  Don  Pero  Mata  requests 
him  to  let  Cardona  continue  in  occupation  of  his  house,  as  Marin 
had  been,  and  one  of  September  24, 1500,  orders  that  quarters  be 
rented  in  Cagliari  where  all  the  officials  can  lodge  together.  There 
was  but  one  inquisitor,  with  an  assessor,  no  fiscal,  one  alguazil,  a 
single  notary  to  serve  both  in  the  tribunal  and  for  the  confiscations, 
and  a  receiver,  with  salaries  too  modest  to  offer  much  temptation 
to  serve  in  an  inhospitable  land,  where  the  principal  occupation 
seems  to  be  quarrelling  with  all  the  other  authorities.2  In  fact  the 
Inquisition  was  as  unpopular  in  Sardinia  as  elsewhere,  for  Fer- 

1  Paramo,  p.  219. 

2  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  1.     The  salaries  are  as  follows: 
Gabriel  de  Cardona,  inquisitor,  from  the  date  of  his  embarcation   .  .   .  150  ducats. 

Bartolome"  de  Castro,  assessor 50       " 

An  alguazil,  with  charge  of  prison,  to  be  selected  by  Carmona    ....     20      " 
Bernat  Ros,  notario  del  secreto  y  de  los  secuestros  .   \  the  salaries 

Yourself , /  heretofore  paid. 

(109) 


SARDINIA 

dinand,  in  announcing  to  his  lieutenant-general  the  appointment 
of  Cardona,  feels  it  necessary  to  order  that  he  and  his  subordinates 
shall  receive  more  favor  than  their  predecessors,  so  that  they  may 
freely  exercise  their  functions;  they  are  not  to  be  ill-treated  by 
any  one,  nor  be  impeded  in  the  performance  of  their  duties.  Ferdi- 
nand had  heard  how  his  lieutenant-general  took  certain  wheat  out 
of  the  hands  of  the  receiver,  resulting  in  the  loss  of  a  hundred  and 
sixty  libras,  wherefore  he  is  ordered  in  future  to  abstain  from 
interference  in  such  matters,  as  otherwise  due  provision  will  be 
made  to  prevent  him.1 

Notwithstanding  these  royal  injunctions,  Cardona  was  not  long 
in  becoming  involved  in  a  bitter  quarrel  with  both  the  secular 
and  ecclesiastical  authorities.  It  appears  from  a  series  of  Ferdi- 
nand's letters,  September  18,  1498,  that  a  certain  Domingo  de 
Santa  Cruz — who  ten  years  before  had  been  the  cause  of  similar 
trouble  in  Valencia — was  imprisoned  by  the  inquisitor  and  for- 
cibly released  by  the  lieutenant-general  and  the  Archbishop  of 
Cagliari,  who  claimed  that,  in  furtherance  of  the  king's  interests, 
they  had  given  him  a  safe-conduct.  The  archbishop,  moreover, 
had  withdrawn  from  Cardona  a  commission  enabling  him  to 
exercise  the  episcopal  jurisdiction,  the  cooperation  of  which  was 
requisite  in  all  judgements.  Ferdinand  writes  in  great  wrath; 
he  instructs  the  inquisitor  to  reclaim  Domingo  at  once,  to  throw 
him  in  chains  and  hold  him  until  the  royal  pleasure  is  known;  if 
the  lieutenant-general  and  archbishop  resist,  he  is  to  proceed 
against  them  with  excommunication;  the  latter  are  roundly 
scolded  and  ordered  to  surrender  the  prisoner  and  hereafter  to 
support  the  inquisitor  and  the  archbishop  is  told  to  renew  the 
episcopal  commission.  Not  content  with  this,  the  king  orders 
the  viguier  of  Cagliari,  under  pain  of  dismissal  from  office,  to  obey 
the  commands  of  the  inquisitor  and  similar  instructions  are  sent 
to  the  town-council.2  The  inquisitor  thus  was  made  the  virtual 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  1. 

1  Paramo,  pp.  220-222.     For  the  Valencia  experience  of  Domingo  de  Santa 
Cruz,  see  History  of  the  Inquisition  of  Spain,  Vol.  I,  p.  242. 


IMPEDIMENTS  HI 

autocrat  of  the  island,  but  his  triumph  was  evanescent,  for  on 
November  15, 1499,  we  find  him  in  Ferdinand's  court  at  Avila  and 
his  salary  ceases  on  that  day.  He  evidently  left  Sardinia  in 
undignified  haste  and  involved  in  trouble,  for  a  royal  cedula  of 
November  18th  commands  the  governor  and  other  officials,  under 
penalty  of  the  royal  wrath  and  of  a  thousand  florins,  to  allow  the 
furniture,  books,  bedding  and  personal  effects  of  the  late  inquisitor 
Cardona  to  be  freely  shipped  to  him.1  Nine  months  elapsed 
before  the  vacancy  was  filled  by  the  commission  of  the  Bishop  of 
Bonavalle,  August  18,  1500,  to  whom  was  granted  the  power  of 
appointing  and  dismissing  his  assessor  and  notary — the  two  offi- 
cials on  whom,  as  Ferdinand  tells  him,  the  success  or  failure  of  the 
Inquisition  chiefly  depends.2 

It  is  quite  possible  that  Cardona's  precipitate  departure  may 
have  been  motived  by  terror  for,  about  that  time,  the  receiver, 
Miguel  Fonte,  was  assassinated  in  Cagliari,  as  we  may  assume, 
by  some  of  those  whom  he  had  reduced  to  poverty.  He  was  not 
killed  on  the  spot;  from  letters  of  February  13,  1500,  we  learn  that 
he  had  been  carried  to  Barcelona,  in  hopes  of  cure,  and  died  there. 
Ferdinand  ordered  that  his  widow  should  be  treated  with  all  con- 
sideration and  that  the  lieutenant-general  should  pursue  and  pun- 
ish the  assassins.  Sympathy  seems  rather  to  have  been  with  the 
criminals  and  the  royal  commands  were  disregarded,  under  the 
frivolous  pretext  that  it  was  the  business  of  the  Inquisition — 
a  palpable  falsehood,  seeing  that  the  tribunal  was  vacant — for 
which  Ferdinand  took  his  representative  severely  to  task  on 
August  18th.  The  receivership  had  also  remained  unoccupied, 
for  it  was  not  until  August  4th  that  a  fit  person  could  be  found, 
venturesome  enough  to  tempt  its  dangers,  in  the  person  of  Juan 
Lopez,  a  merchant  of  Jativa.3 

1  Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  1. 

2  Ibidem.     Pdramo  (p.  223)  calls  the  appointee  Magister  Farris,  subsequently 
created  Bishop  of  Bonebolla — a  see  subsequently  merged  into  that  of  Cagliari. 
There  is  no  reference  in  Gams's  Series  Episcoporum  to  such  a  bishopric  in  Sardinia. 
Paramo  interposes  a  Nicolas  Vaguer  as  inquisitor,  from  1498  to  1500,  which  is 
evidently  a  mistake. 

1  Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion.  Lib.  1. 


112  SARDINIA 

It  may  well  be  that  there  was  wide-spread  hatred  felt  for  the 
receiver  of  confiscations,  for  the  correspondence  of  the  period 
shows  that  persecution  had  been  fairly  productive,  considering 
the  poverty  of  the  island.  August  29, 1497,  there  is  an  order  to  pay 
the  royal  secretary  Calcena,  out  of  the  property  of  Antoni  Cones,  a 
debt  claimed  by  him  of  a  hundred  ducats,  before  any  other  credi- 
tors are  paid.  Then,  on  January  21,  1498,  a  servant  of  the  royal 
household,  Mosen  Gaspar  Gilaberte,  receives  a  gratuity  of  twenty 
thousand  sueldos  (833  J  ducats)  out  of  the  confiscation  of  Juan 
Soller  of  Cagliari.  On  March  llth  we  hear  of  a  composition, 
made  by  request  of  the  Archbishop  and  Syndic  of  Cagliari,  whereby 
the  representatives  of  certain  deceased  persons,  condemned  by 
Micer  Morin,  compounded  for  the  confiscation  of  their  property — 
an  agreement  subsequently  violated  by  Morin,  whereupon  the 
Dean  of  Cagliari  and  other  prominent  persons  appealed  to  Ferdi- 
nand. Then,  October  14th,  there  is  an  ayuda  de  costa  to  the  notary 
Bernat  Ros  to  refund  his  expenses  on  a  journey  to  the  court  and 
back.  Then,  October  12,  1499,  there  is  a  gratuity  of  two  hundred 
and  fifty  ducats  to  Alonso  Castillo,  servant  of  Don  Enrique  Enri- 
quez,  royal  mayordomo  mayor.  Soon  after  this  Cardona,  in 
hurrying  to  the  court  from  Sardinia,  brings  five  hundred  ducats  to 
the  royal  treasury.  During  1500  the  disorganization  of  the  tri- 
bunal cut  off  receipts  but,  in  June,  1501,  we  hear  of  six  hundred 
and  fifty  ducats  given  to  the  nuns  of  Santa  Engracia  of  Saragossa. 
In  1502  there  were  found  some  pearls  among  the  effects  of  Micer 
Rejadel,  condemned  for  heresy,  and  these  Ferdinand  ordered  to 
be  sent  to  him,  covered  by  insurance  and,  in  due  time,  on  July 
17th,  he  acknowledged  their  receipt,  fifty-five  in  number,  weighing 
one  ounce  and  one  eighth  and  nine  grains,  after  which  they 
doubtless  graced  the  toilet  of  Queen  Isabella.  At  the  same  time 
he  warned  Juan  Lopez,  the  receiver,  to  be  careful,  for  there  were 
many  complaints  coming  in  as  to  his  methods  of  procedure.  Some 
months  before  this,  in  February,  Ferdinand  had  complimented  the 
inquisitor  on  the  increased  activity  of  his  tribunal  and  had  urged 
him  to  be  especially  watchful  as  to  the  confiscations,  so  that  noth- 


FERDINAND'S  KINDLINESS  113 

ing  might  be  lost  through  official  negligence.  To  assist  in  the 
enlarged  business  thus  expected,  he  promised  to  appoint  a  juez  de 
los  bienes,  or  judge  of  confiscations.1 

Amid  this  eagerness  to  profit  by  the  misery  which  he  was  creat- 
ing it  is  pleasant  to  find  instances  of  Ferdinand's  kindliness  in 
special  cases.  Thus,  January  12,  1498,  in  the  matter  of  the  con- 
fiscated estate  of  Joan  Andres  of  Cagliari,  he  releases  to  Beatriz  de 
Torrellas,  sister  and  heir  of  Don  Francisco  Torrellas,  because  she 
is  noble  and  poor  and  her  brother  had  served  him,  a  debt  of  59§ 
ducats  due  by  Don  Francisco  to  Andres,  which  of  course  Beatriz 
would  have  had  to  pay.  A  few  weeks  later,  on  February  4th,  he 
alleges  clemency  and  charity  as  his  motive  for  foregoing  the  con- 
fiscation of  certain  houses  in  Cagliari,  belonging  to  Belenguer 
Oluja  and  his  wife,  both  penanced  for  heresy.  October  14th  of 
the  same  year  he  takes  pity  on  Na  Thomasa,  the  wife  of  Joan 
Andres,  who  had  been  penanced  when  her  husband  was  condemned; 
as  she  is  reduced  to  beggary  and  has  an  old  mother  to  support  and 
two  young  girls  of  her  dead  sister,  he  orders  the  receiver  to  give 
her  fifty  ducats  in  charity.  This  same  estate  of  Joan  Andres 
gave  occasion  to  another  act  of  liberality,  February  8,  1502,  in 
releasing  to  the  Hospital  of  San  Antonio  a  censal  of  sixty  libras 
principal,  due  by  it  to  the  estate.2  Trivial  as  are  these  cases, 
they  are  worth  recording,  if  only  for  the  insight  which  they  afford 
on  the  ramifications  through  which  confiscation  spread  misery 
throughout  the  land. 

The  season  of  prosperous  confiscations  seems  to  have  speedily 
passed  away  and  the  Sardinian  tribunal  proved  to  be  a  source  of 
more  trouble  than  profit.  It  is  true  that,  in  1512,  Ferdinand 
derived  a  momentary  satisfaction  from  it,  when  he  learned  that  a 
certain  Miguel  Sanchez  del  Romero,  who  had  been  condemned  and 
burnt  in  effigy  in  Saragossa,  had  escaped  to  the  island,  where  the 
lieutenant-general  had  taken  him  into  favor  and  made  him  viguier 
of  Sassari.  He  promptly  ordered  the  inquisitor  to  seize  him 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  1;  Lib.  2,  fol.  1. 

2  Ibidem,  Lib.  1. 


114  SARDINIA 

secretly  at  once  and  send  him,  under  charge  of  his  alguazil,  to 
Saragossa,  by  the  first  vessel  and,  at  the  same  time,  he  notified 
the  lieutenant-general  that  any  impediment  offered  would  be 
punished  with  deprivation  of  office,  confiscation  of  property  and 
excommunication  by  the  inquisitor.1  This  exhibition  of  vigor, 
however,  did  not  serve  to  put  the  tribunal  on  an  efficient  basis; 
Ferdinand  was  becoming  thoroughly  dissatisfied  and,  in  August, 
1514,  he  tried  the  expedient  of  appointing  as  inquisitor  Juan  de 
Loaysa,  Bishop  of  Alghero,  at  the  other  end  of  the  island  from 
Cagliari,  without  removing  the  existing  inquisitor,  Canon  Aragall, 
but  rendering  him  subordinate  to  the  bishop,  whose  place  of  resi- 
dence was  to  be  the  seat  of  the  tribunal.  It  is  significant  of  the 
decadent  condition  of  affairs  that  Bernat  Ros,  who  had  become 
the  receiver  of  confiscations,  sent  in  his  resignation,  on  the  plea  of 
ill-health,  and  that  Ferdinand  refused  to  accept  it  unless  he  would 
find  some  one  to  take  his  place.  Presumably  the  trouble  was  that 
the  harvest  of  confiscations  had  been  gathered  and  spent,  without 
making  investments  that  would  give  the  tribunal  an  assured  in- 
come, and  that  the  financial  prospects  were  gloomy.  Ferdinand 
realized  this  and  his  zeal  for  the  faith  was  insufficient  to  lead  him 
to  assume  the  responsibility.  He  made  out  a  new  schedule  of 
salaries  on  an  absurdly  low  basis,  amounting,  for  the  whole  tri- 
bunal, to  only  three  hundred  and  thirty  libras,  telling  the  receiver 
that,  if  the  receipts  were  insufficient,  the  salaries  must  be  cut 
down  to  a  sueldo  in  the  libra  for  he  did  not  propose  to  be  in  any 
way  responsible.2  The  institution  was  to  be  self-supporting,  which 
was  perhaps  the  best  way  to  stimulate  its  activity  but,  if  this 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  3,  fol.  184,  185. 

1  Ibidem,  fol.  306,  307,  308.     The  salaries  ordered  were: 

The  Bishop  of  Alghero,  inquisitor 100  libras. 

Micer  Pedro  de  Contreras,  advocate 30 

Luis  de  Torres,  alguazil 30 

An  escribano  for  both  secreto  and  secuestros 30 

A  portero  and  nuncio 10 

Bernat  Ros,  receiver 100 

Mossen  Alonso  de  Ximeno,  fiscal 30       " 

It  is  observable  that  no  salary  is   provided   for  Canon  Aragall,  the  other 
inquisitor  (see  Appendix). 


VICISSITUDES  115 

were  the  object,  it  was  scarce  successful  for,  in  January,  1515, 
Ferdinand  writes  that  the  baile  of  the  island,  in  whose  house  the 
Inquisition  was  quartered,  is  about  to  return  home  and  wants 
the  house;  as  there  is  so  little  business  and  so  few  prisoners,  it  can 
get  accommodation  in  the  Dominican  convent,  which  will  serve 
the  purpose.  Loaysa's  term  of  office  was  short,  for  he  was  sent  to 
Rome  as  agent  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  and  the  Bishop  of  Ales 
and  Torrealba  was  appointed  in  his  place.  In  announcing  this 
to  him,  August  28,  1515,  Ferdinand  significantly  warns  him  not  to 
meddle  in  matters  disconnected  with  the  Holy  Office.1 

Notwithstanding  this  palpable  decadence,  the  Sardinian  Inqui- 
sition continued  to  exist.  It  was  in  vain  that,  after  Ferdinand's 
death  in  January,  1516,  followed  by  that  of  Bishop  Mercader,  the 
Inquisitor-general  of  Aragon,  the  people  rejoiced  in  the  expecta- 
tion of  its  abandonment,  for  the  representatives  of  Charles  V,  by 
a  circular  letter  of  August  30th  to  the  lieutenant-general  and  the 
municipal  authorities,  assured  them  that  it  would  be  continued 
and  ordered  them  to  take  measures  for  its  increased  activity, 
while  the  inquisitor  was  informed  that,  although  Sardinia  was 
under  the  crown  of  Aragon,  it  was  not  to  enjoy  the  provisions  of 
the  Concordias  to  which  Ferdinand  had  been  obliged  to  assent  at 
home.2  Possibly  the  tribunal  may  have  become  more  active  but 
it  was  not  more  productive  for,  in  1522,  the  home  tribunals  were 
assessed  for  its  support,  Majorca  being  called  upon  for  two 
hundred  ducats  and  Barcelona  and  Saragossa  for  a  hundred  each.3 
About  1540,  however,  it  seems  to  have  discovered  some  well-to-do 
heretics,  for  we  hear  of  its  having  three  thousand  ducats  to  invest 
in  censos.4  This  accession  of  wealth,  however,  does  not  argue  that 
its  financial  management  was  better  than  was  customary  in  the 
Inquisition  for,  in  1544,  a  commission  was  sent  to  the  Bishop  of 
Alghero,  the  inquisitor,  clothing  him  with  full  power  to  require 
from  the  receiver,  Peroche  de  Salazar,  a  detailed  account  of  his 
expenditures  and  his  receipts  from  fines,  penances,  commutations 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  3,  fol.  321,  348,  349,  351. 

2  Ibidem,  fol.  366;  Lib.  75,  fol.  40.  3  Ibidem,  Lib,  940,  fol.  36. 
*  Ibidem,  Lib.  78,  fol.  304. 


116  SARDINIA 

and  rehabilitations,  and  to  investigate  all  frauds,  collusions  and 
concealments,  the  terms  of  the  commission  indicating  that  there 
had  long  been  no  check  on  embezzlements.1 

Such  prosperity  as  the  tribunal  enjoyed  was  spasmodic  and  it 
soon  relapsed  into  indigence.  In  1577  we  find  the  tribunal  of 
Murcia  ordered  to  pay  two  hundred  ducats,  arrearages  of  salary 
due  to  Martinez  Villar,  who  had  been  promoted,  in  1569,  from 
the  inquisitorship  to  the  archbishopric  of  Sassari2  and,  in  1588, 
Seville  and  Llerena  were  each  called  upon  for  119,000  maravedis 
to  repair  an  injustice  committed  by  the  Sardinia  tribunal  on  Maria 
Malla — apparently  it  had  spent  the  ill-gotten  money  and  was 
unable  to  make  restitution.3  In  hopes  of  relieving  this  poverty- 
stricken  condition,  Philip  II,  in  1580,  appealed  to  Gregory  XIII 
stating  that  it  could  not  sustain  itself  and  asking  for  assistance, 
which  of  course  meant  that  canonries  or  other  benefices  should  be 
assigned  to  its  support.4  This  appeal  was  unavailing  for,  in  1618, 
the  Suprema  represented  to  Philip  III  the  deplorable  condition  of 
the  tribunal,  unable  to  defray  the  salaries  of  a  single  inquisitor,  a 
fiscal,  two  secretaries  and  the  minor  officials;  it  urged  him  to 
obtain  from  the  pope  the  suppression  of  canonries  and  meanwhile 
to  meet  its  necessities  by  the  grant  of  some  licences  to  export  wheat 
and  horses,  which  the  pious  monarch  hastened  to  do.5  This  did 
not  relieve  the  chronic  poverty  and,  in  1658,  Gregorio  Cid,  trans- 
ferred to  Cuenca  after  six  years  and  a  half  of  service  in  Sardinia, 
represented  to  the  inquisitor-general  that  the  tribunal  ought  to 
have  two  inquisitors  and  a  fiscal  and  that  it  was  difficult  to 
find  any  one  to  serve  as  a  notary,  for  the  salary  was  small  and 
expenses  were  great;  besides,  the  climate  was  so  unhealthy  that 
the  tribunal  often  had  to  be  closed  in  consequence  of  the  sickness 
of  the  officials.8 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Sala  40,  Lib.  4,  fol.  136. 

3  Ibidem,  Lib.  940,  fol.  44.  8  Ibidem,  fol.  44,  45. 

4  Biblioteca  national  de  Madrid,  MSS.,  D,  118,  fol.  179,  n.  55. 
8  Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  19,  fol.  100. 

6  Biblioteca  national,  loc.  tit.,  fol.  124,  n.  44. 


EPISCOPAL  INTERFERENCE  117 

The  tribunal  was  evidently  a  superfluity,  in  so  far  as  its  legiti- 
mate functions  were  concerned,  and  we  may  assume  that  it  was 
maintained  not  so  much  to  deal  with  existing  heretics  as  to  prevent 
the  island  from  becoming  an  asylum  for  heresy.  This  could  have 
been  accomplished  by  strengthening  and  stimulating  the  episcopal 
jurisdiction,  but  the  Inquisition  had  monopolized  this  and  was 
jealous  of  all  interference.  In  1538  Paul  III  addressed  to  the 
bishops  and  inquisitor  of  the  island  a  brief  in  which  he  recapitu- 
lated the  provisions  of  the  Council  of  Vienne  requiring  them  to 
cooperate  and  work  in  harmony;  he  urged  the  bishops  to  be  so 
active  in  repressing  heresy  that  they  should  need  no  outside  aid 
but,  if  such  should  be  necessary,  the  mandates  of  the  council 
were  to  be  observed.  The  bishops  apparently  were  not  remiss 
in  taking  advantage  of  this  to  revendicate  the  jurisdiction  of 
which  they  had  practically  been  stripped  and  the  Inquisition 
resented  the  intrusion;  Charles  V  must  speedily  have  made  the 
pope  sensible  of  his  mistake  for,  in  1540,  he  addressed  to  the 
judges  of  the  island  another  brief  revoking  the  previous  one  and 
reciting  that  the  episcopal  Ordinaries  were  interfering  with  the 
functions  of  the  inquisitors  and  must  be  restrained  from  impeding 
or  molesting  them  in  any  way  by  the  liberal  use  of  censures  and 
the  invocation,  if  necessary,  of  the  secular  arm.  This  was  not 
allowed  to  be  a  dead  letter  for,  when  in  1555  Salvator,  Archbishop 
of  Sassari,  under  the  brief  of  1538,  undertook  to  interfere  with 
the  tribunal,  Paul  IV,  at  the  request  of  the  emperor,  promptly 
ordered  the  Bishops  of  Alghero,  Suelli  and  Bosa  to  intervene  and 
granted  them  the  necessary  faculties  to  coerce  him.1 

The  tribunal  had  little  to  show  as  the  result  of  the  jurisdiction 
so  eagerly  monopolized.  In  fact,  its  chief  industry  consisted  in 
multiplying  its  nominal  officials  and  familiars — positions  sought 
for  in  consequence  of  their  privileges  and  immunities  and  doubt- 
less liberally  paid  for.  As  early  as  1552,  Inquisitor-general  Valde*s 
rebuked  Andreas  Sanna,  Bishop  of  Ales  and  inquisitor,  for  the 
inordinate  number  of  familiars  and  commissioners  who  obtained 


1  Fontana,  Documenti  Vatican!,  pp.  100,  110,  169. 


118  SARDINIA 

appointments  for  the  purpose  of  enjoying  the  exemptions,  and  he 
ordered  them  reduced  to  the  absolute  needs  of  the  Holy  Office.1 
This  command  was  unheeded,  the  industry  flourished  and  the 
principal  activity  of  the  tribunal  lay  in  the  resultant  disputes 
with  the  secular  courts.  So  recklessly  did  it  distribute  its  favors 
that,  on  one  occasion,  an  enumeration  in  three  villages  of  Gallura 
disclosed  no  less  than  five  hundred  persons  entitled  to  the  privi- 
leges of  the  Holy  Office.  The  consequences  of  this  widely  dis- 
tributed impunity  were  of  course  deplorable  on  both  the  peace 
and  the  morals  of  the  island.2 

Under  such  circumstances  quarrels  with  the  secular  authorities 
were  perpetual  and  inevitable  and  were  conducted  on  both  sides 
with  a  violence  attributable  to  the  remoteness  of  the  island  and 
the  little  respect  felt  by  either  party  for  the  other.  A  specimen 
of  the  spirit  developed  in  these  conflicts  is  afforded  in  a  brief  of 
Paul  V,  March  22,  1617,  to  Inquisitor-general  Sandoval  y  Rojas, 
complaining  bitterly  of  a  recent  outbreak  in  which  the  inquisitor 
excommunicated  two  officials  and  the  royal  court  ordered  him  to 
absolve  them.  On  his  refusal,  the  court  cited  him  to  appear  and 
sentenced  him  to  exile — a  decree  which  was  published  in  Cagliari 
and  elsewhere  to  sound  of  drum  and  trumpet.  Then  the  governor 
intervened  in  support  of  the  court,  treating  the  inquisitor,  if 
we  may  believe  the  ex  parte  statement,  with  unprecedented  harsh- 
ness. He  broke  into  the  Inquisition  with  an  armed  force  and 
ordered  the  inquisitor  either  to  grant  the  absolutions  or  to  go  on 
board  of  a  vessel  about  to  sail  for  Flanders  and,  on  his  refusal,  he 
was  so  maltreated  as  to  be  left  almost  lifeless  on  the  floor.  On  a 
second  intrusion  he  was  found  in  bed  with  a  fever ;  he  still  refused 
to  embark  and  was  left  under  guard,  but  he  succeeded  in  escaping 
by  a  rope  from  a  window  and  took  asylum  in  the  Dominican  church, 
whither  the  governor  followed  him  and  seized  him  while  celebrat- 
ing mass,  with  the  sacrament  in  his  hands.  This  time  he  was  kept 
in  secure  custody  until  he  gave  bonds  to  sail,  after  which,  in  fear 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Sala  40,  Lib.  4,  fol.  208. 
'  Manno,  Storia  di  Sardegna,  II,  189-90  (Milano,  1835). 


DISAPPEARANCE  119 

of  the  voyage,  he  submitted  and  absolved  the  excommunicates. 
Paul  summoned  the  governor  and  his  accomplices  to  appear  in 
Rome  and  undergo  the  penalty  of  their  offences,  but  it  may  be 
doubted  whether  they  were  obliged  to  obey,  for  Spanish  jealousy 
of  the  curia  was  quite  as  acute  as  indignation  caused  by  invasion 
of  inquisitorial  inviolability  and  appeals  to  Rome  were  absolutely 
forbidden  to  all  parties.1  It  was  impossible  to  devise  any  per- 
manent basis  of  pacification  between  the  conflicting  jurisdictions 
and,  up  to  1630,  there  were  enumerated  no  less  than  seven  Con- 
cordias,  or  agreements  to  settle  their  respective  pretensions,  in 
spite  of  which  the  disturbances  continued  as  actively  as  ever.2 

During  the  War  of  the  Spanish  Succession,  Sardinia  was  cap- 
tured by  the  Allies  in  1708  and,  in  1718,  it  passed  into  possession 
of  the  House  of  Savoy.  As  soon  as  the  Spanish  domination  ceased 
the  Inquisition  disappeared  and  the  bishops  revendicated  their 
jurisdiction  over  heresy,  each  one  organizing  an  Inquisition  of 
his  own,  not  so  much,  we  are  told,  with  the  object  of  eradicating 
heresy  as  to  enable  them  to  exempt  retainers  from  public  burdens, 
by  appointing  them  to  useless  offices.3  Jealousy  of  the  Inquisition 
had  been  the  traditional  policy  of  the  Dukes  of  Savoy4  and,  as 
the  support  of  the  secular  arm  was  essential  to  the  activity  of  the 
institution,  we  may  presume  that  even  these  episcopal  substitutes 
faded  away  in  silence.  In  1775  a  survey  of  the  ecclesiastical  and 
religious  condition  of  the  island  makes  no  allusion  to  prosecutions 
for  heresy  although  it  records  a  tradition  that,  towards  the  end 
of  the  seventeenth  century,  certain  Quietists  and  followers  of 
Molinos  had  found  refuge  in  the  mountain  caves.5 


1  Bulario  de  la  Orden  de  Santiago,  Lib.  Ill,  fol.  594  (Archive  hist,  national). 

2  Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  13,  fol.  28;  Lib.  20,  fol.  208;  Lib.  21, 
fol.  240;  Libros  56,  57,  918. 

3  La  Martiniere,  Le  Grand  Dictionnaire  Geographique  et  Critique,  IX,  237 
(Venise,  1737). 

4  Sclopis,  Antica  Legislazione  del  Piemonte,  p.  484  (Torino,  1833). 

5  Le  Bret,  Magazin  zum  Gebrauch  der    Staaten-    und  Kirchengeschichte,  5 
Theil,  p.  547  (Frankfurt,  1776). 


CHAPTER    IV. 

MILAN. 

BY  the  treaty  of  Cambrai,  in  1529,  Francis  I  abandoned  the 
Milanese  to  Charles  V  and  it  thenceforth  formed  part  of  the  Italian 
possessions  of  Spain.  In  the  eleventh  and  twelfth  centuries  it 
had  been  the  hot-bed  of  heresy  and  it  was,  in  the  thirteenth,  one 
of  the  earliest  scenes  of  inquisitorial  activity.  It  was  there  that 
Pietro  di  Verona  sealed  his  devotion  with  his  blood  and  became 
the  patron  saint  of  the  Holy  Office.  With  the  gradual  extermi- 
nation of  heresy,  the  Inquisition  there  as  elsewhere  grew  inert  and, 
even  after  the  new  and  threatening  development  of  the  Refor- 
mation, when  Paul  III,  in  1536,  was  alarmed  by  reports  of  the 
proselyting  zeal  and  success  of  Fra  Battista  da  Crema,  he  had  no 
tribunal  on  which  he  could  rely  to  suppress  the  heretic.  In  de- 
fault of  this  he  commissioned  Giovanni,  Bishop  of  Modena,  who 
was  then  in  Milan,  together  with  the  Dominican  Provincial,  to 
preach  against  the  heretics  and  to  punish  according  to  law  those 
whom  they  might  find  guilty,  at  the  same  time  significantly 
forbidding  the  inquisitor  and  the  episcopal  Ordinary  to  interfere.1 

Even  when  the  Inquisition  was  reorganized  by  Paul  III,  in  1542, 
it  was  for  some  time  inefficiently  administered  and  lacked  the 
secular  support  requisite  to  its  usefulness.  This  was  especially 
felt  in  the  Milanese  which,  from  its  neighborhood  to  Switzerland 
and  the  Waldensian  Valleys,  was  peculiarly  exposed  to  infection. 
The  adventure  which  brought  the  Dominican  Fra  Michele  Ghis- 

1  Fontana,  Document!  Vatican!  contro  PEresia  Luterana,  p.  87. — Raynald. 
Annal.,  ann.  1536,  n.  45. 

The  greed  of  the  curia  in  grasping  at  all  attainable  rich  preferment  was  a  fruit- 
ful source  of  neglect  and  gave  opportunity  for  heresy  to  flourish.  Cardinal 
Ippolito  d'Este,  who  was  archbishop  of  Milan  from  1520  to  1550,  during  the 
whole  of  that  time  never  entered  the  city. — Gams,  Series  Episcoporum,  p.  797. 

(121) 


122  MILAN 

lieri  into  notice  and  opened  for  him  the  path  to  the  papacy,  shows 
the  danger  and  difficulty  of  the  situation.  Heresy  was  creeping 
through  the  Orisons,  the  Valtelline  and  the  Val  di  Chiavenna, 
forming  part  of  the  diocese  of  Como  when,  in  1550,  Fra  Michele 
was  sent  thither  as  inquisitor  to  arrest  its  progress.  He  found  a 
dozen  bales  of  heretic  books  consigned  to  a  merchant  in  Como, 
to  be  distributed  throughout  Italy  where,  in  all  the  cities,  there 
were  said  to  be  agencies  for  the  purpose.  He  seized  the  books  in 
the  custom-house,  whereupon  the  merchant  complained  to  the 
episcopal  vicar,  who  took  possession  of  them.  Ghislieri  wrote 
to  the  Roman  Holy  Office  which  cited  the  vicar  and  the  canons  to 
appear;  in  place  of  obeying,  they  appealed  to  Ferrando  Gonzaga, 
Governor  of  Milan,  and  raised  such  a  storm  among  the  people  that 
Ghislieri's  life  was  in  danger.  Gonzaga  summoned  him  to  come 
to  him  the  next  day;  he  started  at  night  on  foot  and  it  was  only 
the  accident  of  his  taking  the  longer  road  that  led  him  to  escape 
an  ambush  where  he  would  have  shared  the  fate  of  St.  Peter 
Martyr.  Gonzaga  threatened  him  with  imprisonment,  but  finally 
allowed  him  to  depart,  when  he  went  to  Rome  and  so  impressed 
the  cardinals  of  the  Holy  Office  that  he  was  marked  for  promotion. 
It  was  not  much  better  in  1561  when,  after  being  created  Bishop  of 
Mondovi,  he  visited  his  diocese  and  returned  dissatisfied,  for  he 
had  been  unable  to  secure  the  support  of  the  secular  arm  for  the 
suppression  of  heresy.1 


1  Catena,  Vita  del  Papa  Pio  Quinto,  pp.  6-8,  17  (Roma,  1587). 

Two  somewhat  similar  cases  show  that  the  Venetian  territory  was  equally  in- 
fected and  equally  indifferent  (Ibidem,  pp.  9,  10).  One  of  these  likewise  exhibits 
Ghislieri's  implacable  persistence.  Vittore  Soranzo,  Bishop  of  Brescia,  was  over- 
curious  in  reading  heretic  books.  Ghislieri  was  sent  to  make  a  secret  investi- 
gation and,  on  his  report,  Soranzo  was  summoned  to  Rome  and  confined  in  the 
castle  of  Sant'  Angelo  for  two  years.  Nothing  was  proved  against  him;  he  was 
released  and  returned  to  his  see,  where  he  continued  to  perform  his  functions 
until  1558.  In  1557  Ghislieri  was  promoted  to  the  cardinalate  and,  in  1558,  Paul 
IV  created  for  him  the  office  of  supreme  inquisitor — an  office  which  he  was  careful 
not  to  perpetuate  after  he  became  Pius  V.  He  had  not  forgotten  his  failure  to 
convict  Soranzo.  In  April,  1558,  Paul  IV,  in  public  consistory,  deprived  of  his 
office  the  unfortunate  bishop,  who  retired  to  Venice  and  speedily  died  of  grief. — 
Catena,  pp.  13, 15.— Ughelli,  Italia  Sacra,  T.  IV,  pp.  695-701. 


INEFFICIENC Y  OF  INQ  UISITION  123 

In  Milan,  we  are  told,  there  were  many  heretics,  not  only  among 
the  laity  but  among  the  clergy,  both  regular  and  secular,  some  of 
whom  seem  to  have  been  publicly  known  and  to  have  enjoyed 
the  protection  of  the  authorities.  In  1554  Archbishop  Arcim- 
boldo  and  Inquisitor  Castiglione  united  in  issuing  an  Edict  of 
Faith,  comprehensive  in  its  character,  promising  for  spontaneous 
confession  and  denunciation  of  accomplices  the  reward  of  a 
fourth  part  of  the  fines  and  confiscations  that  might  ensue. 
Denunciation  of  heretics  was  also  commanded,  with  assurance  of 
secrecy  for  the  informer.  This  Edict  is  moreover  of  especial  inter- 
est as  comprehending  what  is  perhaps  the  earliest  organization 
of  censorship,  for  it  required  the  denunciation  of  all  prohibited 
books  and  the  presentation  by  booksellers  of  inventories  of  their 
stocks,  with  heavy  penalties  for  omissions  or  for  dealing  in  the 
prohibited  wares.1  This  zeal  seems  not  to  have  aroused  the  secular 
authorities  to  a  fitting  sense  of  their  duties,  for  a  brief  of  Paul  IV, 
May  20,  1556,  to  Cardinal  Mandrusio,  lieutenant  of  Philip  II, 
recites  how  that  son  of  iniquity,  the  apostate  Augustinian  Claudio 
de  Pralboino,  had  been  condemned  by  the  inquisitor  and  handed 
over  to  the  secular  arm;  how,  while  awaiting  his  fate  in  the  public 
prison,  a  forged  order,  purporting  to  be  signed  by  the  inquisitor, 
had  been  fabricated  by  some  lawyers,  on  the  strength  of  which  he 
escaped  and,  in  view  of  all  this,  the  cardinal  is  urged  to  see  to  the 
punishment  of  those  concerned  in  the  fraud,  to  lend  all  aid  and 
assistance  to  the  inquisitor  and  to  be  watchful  against  the  heresies 
creeping  in  from  the  Orisons.  It  was  doubtless  with  the  hope  of 
securing  greater  efficiency  that,  in  1558,  the  Inquisition  was  taken 
from  the  friars  of  San  Eustorgio  and  confided  to  those  of  Santa 
Maria  delle  Grazie  and  the  Dominican  Gianbattista  da  Cremona 
was  appointed  inquisitor-general.2 

In  1560,  Cardinal  Carlo  Borromeo,  in  his  twenty-second  year, 
was,  through  the  nepotism  of  his  uncle  Pius  IV,  appointed  to  the 
great  archiepiscopate  of  Milan,  which  extended  over  all  Lombardy. 

1  Cesare  Cantu,  Eretici  d' Italia,  III,  34-7. 

2  Fontana,  Document!  Vatican!,  pp.  174,  184. 


124  MILAN 

Sincere  as  was  his  piety,  he  accepted  an  office  which  he  did  not 
fill,  for  he  remained  in  Rome  until  the  severe  virtue  of  Pius  V,  in 
1566,  required  him  to  reside  in  his  see.  His  ceaseless  labors  to 
reform  his  people,  both  clergy  and  laity,  his  self-devotion,  his 
charity,  earned  for  him  the  honors  of  canonization  and  the 
admiration  even  of  Jansenists,  but  the  zeal  displayed  in  the 
enforcement  of  discipline  upon  unwilling  ecclesiastics  found  equal 
expression  in  the  persecution  of  heretics.  He  was,  in  fact,  the 
incarnation  of  the  Counter-Reformation,  in  combating  heresy  by 
force  as  well  as  by  depriving  it,  as  far  as  possible,  of  its  raison  d'etre. 
In  the  early  years  of  his  archiepiscopate,  during  his  attendance  on 
the  papal  court,  the  business  of  the  Inquisition  in  Milan  was  carried 
on  in  most  slovenly  fashion.  This  was  not  for  lack  of  any  sensi- 
tiveness as  to  heresy  for,  when  in  July,  1561,  the  Franciscan  Guar- 
dian of  Marignano,  being  delayed  in  making  a  sacramental  con- 
fession, exclaimed,  in  a  fit  of  impatience,  that  confession  to  God 
sufficed,  he  was  arrested  for  such  heretical  speech  and  sent  for 
trial  to  Milan,  under  a  guard  of  soldiers.  They  arrived  at  night 
and  carried  their  prisoner  to  the  archiepiscopal  palace,  where 
they  were  told  to  take  him  to  the  prison,  but  misunderstanding^ 
as  was  said,  their  instructions,  they  marched  him  to  one  of  the 
city  gates  and  let  him  go,  whereupon  he  naturally  disappeared.1 
In  that  same  month  of  July,  Carlo's  uncle,  Giulio  Cesare  Borromeo, 
writes  to  him  that  the  inquisitor  has  allowed  to  escape  a  certain 
chief  of  the  Lutherans,  whom  he  had  had  infinite  trouble  to  seize; 
he  would  give  a  thousand  ducats  that  the  culprit  had  not  been 
brought  to  Milan  for,  as  a  relapsed,  he  was  already  convicted. 
He  shrewdly  suspects  complicity,  but  there  is  no  remedy  and  great 
scandal  is  to  be  expected.2  Matters  probably  did  not  improve 
when,  in  the  Spring  of  1563,  the  inquisitor  Fra  Angelo  da  Cremona 
involved  himself  in  a  bitter  quarrel  with  Andrea  Ruberto,  the 
archbishop's  vicar,  over  a  printer  named  Moscheno,  whom  he 
had  cast  into  prison  and  whose  wife  and  work-people  he  threatened 

1  MSS.  of  Ambrosian  Library,  Tom.  9,  F.  45,  Parte  Inferiore,  Lettera  92. 

2  Ibidem,  Tom.  51,  F.  101,  P.  Inf.,  Lett.  107. 


THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION  PROPOSED  125 

to  arrest.  It  was  a  conflict  of  jurisdiction,  the  vicar  claiming 
concurrent  action  and  the  inquisitor  that  his  cognizance  of  the 
case  was  exclusive.  The  vicar  appealed  to  the  archbishop  and 
represented  the  inquisitor  in  no  flattering  terms.  The  inquisitor 
wrote  to  the  Roman  Congregation  that  the  vicar  was  a  man 
without  fear  of  God  and  was  interfering  to  protect  a  heretic  who 
was  disseminating  his  heresies  throughout  the  land ;  he  had  refused 
the  vicar's  request  to  communicate  the  proceedings,  as  he  desired 
to  preserve  the  privileges  of  the  Holy  Office.  Carlo  counselled 
moderation  to  his  vicar  and,  as  the  latter  was  replaced  the  next 
year  by  Nicolo  Ormanetto,  he  was  evidently  worsted  in  the 
encounter.1 

It  is  not  surprising  that  this  imperfect  working  of  the  machinery 
of  persecution  should  prove  wholly  unsatisfactory  to  Philip  II. 
Twenty  years  had  elapsed  since  the  reconstruction  of  the  papal 
Inquisition,  yet  in  the  Lombard  province  where,  if  anywhere,  it 
should  be  active  and  unsparing  and  where  he  had  ordered  his 
representatives  to  give  it  all  favor  and  assistance,  it  was  proving 
manifestly  unequal  to  its  duties.  The  natural  remedy  lay  in 
taking  it  out  of  hands  that  proved  incompetent  and  in  remodelling 
it  after  the  Spanish  fashion  and  this  he  resolved  to  do.  He  applied 
to  Pius  IV  for  the  necessary  briefs,  but  met  with  some  delay. 
This  was  inevitable.  The  Roman  Congregation  had  already  ample 
experience  of  the  unyielding  independence  of  the  Spanish  Suprema 
and  it  could  only  look  with  disfavor  on  having  to  surrender  to  its 
rival  so  important  a  portion  of  its  own  territory,  with  the  inevi- 
table result  of  an  endless  series  of  broils  in  which  it  would  prob- 
ably often  be  worsted.  At  that  time  however  Philip's  request 
was  equivalent  to  a  command;  it  was  difficult  to  frame  a  plausible 
reason  for  refusal  and  Pius  gave  his  assent.2  It  was  Philip's 
intention  that  the  Milanese  Inquisition  should  be  organized  on 
an  imposing  scale  and  he  had  a  commission  as  inquisitor  issued 
to  Gaspar  Cervantes,  an  experienced  Spanish  inquisitor,  then 

1 MSS.  of  Ambrosian  Library,  Tom.  53,  F.  103,  P.  Inf.,  Lett.  42,  43,  44,  45, 
77,  97. 
2  Muratori,  Annali  d'ltalia,  aim.  1563.— De  Thou,  Hist.,  Lib.  xxxvi. 


126  MILAN 

Archbishop  of  Messina  and  recently  elected  to  the  see  of  Salerno, 
but  Pius  delayed  the  confirmation  for  months.  Cervantes  was  at 
the  council  of  Trent  when  he  received  the  commission;  he  replied 
that,  as  the  decree  requiring  episcopal  residence  had  been  adopted, 
he  could  not  be  absent  from  his  see  more  than  three  months  at  a 
time,  but  that,  if  the  king  considered  his  services  at  Milan  essen- 
tial, he  would  resign  the  archbishopric.  Archbishop  Calini,  who 
reports  this  from  Trent,  August  23,  1563,  adds  that  two  ambassa- 
dors from  Milan  had  just  arrived  there  to  plead  with  the  papal 
legates  against  the  introduction  of  the  Spanish  Inquisition  in 
their  city.1 

In  fact,  as  soon  as  the  rumor  spread  of  the  impending  change, 
there  arose  an  agitation  which  speedily  grew  to  serious  propor- 
tions and  threatened  a  repetition  of  the  experiences  of  Naples. 
The  people  declared  that  they  would  not  submit  peaceably.  The 
municipal  Council  of  Sixty  at  once  arranged  to  send  envoys  to 
Philip,  to  the  pope,  and  to  the  legates  at  Trent.  The  latter  reached 
there,  as  we  have  seen,  on  August  22d  and  their  instructions  doubt- 
less were  the  same  as  those  prepared  for  the  envoys  to  the  pope, 
representing  that  the  existing  Inquisition  was  thoroughly  manned 
and  active  and  had  the  earnest  support  of  the  secular  authorities, 
while  the  mere  prospect  of  introducing  the  Spanish  institution 
had  so  alarmed  the  people  that  many  were  already  leaving  the 
city,  threatening  its  depopulation  if  the  project  were  persisted  in 
and  the  transfer  of  its  commerce  and  industries  to  rival  communi- 
ties. The  envoys  to  the  pope  were  also  told  to  invoke  the  good 
offices  of  Cardinal  Borromeo  and  to  point  out  that,  as  he  was 
responsible  for  the  Inquisition  and  for  the  defence  of  the  faith  in 
Milan,  the  necessity  for  a  new  organization  would  infer  neglect  of 
duty  on  the  part  of  his  representatives.2 

A  Milanese  agent  of  the  Cardinal-Archbishop  confirmed  this  in 
a  letter  to  him  of  August  25th,  describing  the  great  popular  per- 
turbation, arising  not  from  a  consciousness  of  the  existence  of 


1  Lettere  del  Archivescovo  Calini  (Baluz.  et  Mansi  Miscell.,  IV,  329). 
1  Salomon!,  Memorie  Storico-Diplomatiche,  p.  159  (Milano,  1806). 


POPULAR  EXCITEMENT  127 

heresy  but  from  the  disgrace  of  the  imputation  and  the  dread  of 
the  facilities  offered  for  the  gratification  of  malignity,  coupled 
with  the  destruction  of  the  families  of  the  accused.  It  were  to 
be  wished  that  the  virtue  of  the  people  was  equal  to  their  devotion, 
for  the  ardor  of  their  faith  was  seen  in  the  frequentation  of  the 
sacraments,  the  great  demand  for  indulgences  and  the  perform- 
ance of  other  pious  works.1  Further  news  was  sent  to  him,  Sep- 
tember 1st,  by  his  confidential  agent,  Tullio  Albonesi,  who  reported 
that  the  governor,  the  Duke  of  Sessa,  has  not  wished  the  city  to 
send  envoys  to  Philip  II,  for  he  had  already  taken  measures  to 
prevent  the  introduction  of  the  dreaded  tribunal.  Still  it  was 
desirable  that  the  cardinal,  on  his  part,  should  see  that  this  turned 
out  to  be  successful,  for  the  popular  mind  was  so  inflamed  that 
great  disorder  would  be  inevitable  and  it  would  be  well  for  him 
to  let  it  be  clearly  seen  that  he  had  opposed  the  project  so  as 
to  disabuse  those  who  asserted  the  contrary.2  The  municipal 
authorities  trusted  the  governor  and  promptly  abandoned  their 
purpose  of  sending  envoys  to  the  king  and  to  the  pope.  These 
had  already  been  chosen  and  had  arranged  for  the  journey,  incur- 
ring expenses  which  had  to  be  defrayed.  Accordingly,  at  a  meet- 
ing of  the  Council  of  Sixty,  held  September  24th,  it  was  resolved 
that,  as  the  governor  had  stopped  them  and  taken  upon  himself  to 
deal  with  the  king  and  the  pope,  the  envoys  should  be  repaid  the 
fifteen  hundred  ducats  expended  in  preparations,  on  their  surrend- 
ering the  articles  purchased  for  the  purpose,  which  were  then  to  be 
publicly  sold  at  sound  of  trumpet  in  the  Plaza  delli  Mercanti,  as 
was  customary  in  such  cases.  Besides  this  there  had  already  been 
spent  a  hundred  and  ten  ducats  in  twice  sending  letters  to  the 
pope  and  cardinals.3 

The  mission  to  Trent  had  proved  conspicuously  serviceable,  for 
the  popular  resistance  was  efficiently  seconded  by  the  bishops 
assembled  there.  Those  of  Lombardy  dreaded  to  be  exposed  to 


1  MSS.  of  Ambrosian  Library,  Tom.  23,  F.  73,  P.  Inf.  Lett.  47. 

3  Ibidem,  Tom.  53,  F.  103,  P.  Inf.  Lett.  176. 

1  Archivio  civico-storico  a  S.  Carpofaro,  Armario  A,  Filza  vn,  n.  43. 


128  MILAN 

the  experience  endured  by  their  Spanish  brethren,  humiliated  in 
their  dioceses  by  the  unrestrained  autocracy  of  the  inquisitors. 
Those  of  Naples  argued  that,  if  the  Spanish  Inquisition  were 
once  installed  in  Milan,  it  would  surely  be  extended  to  Naples, 
with  similar  results  to  them.  Those  of  the  rest  of  Italy  felt  that 
it  could  not  then  be  refused  to  the  princes  of  the  other  states, 
while  the  papal  legates  recognized  that  in  such  case  the  authority 
of  the  Holy  See  would  be  seriously  crippled,  for  the  allegiance  of 
the  bishops  would  be  transferred  to  their  secular  rulers  who 
could  control  them  through  the  inquisitors  and,  in  the  event  of 
another  general  council,  it  would  be  the  princes  and  not  the  pope 
that  would  predominate  in  its  deliberations.  Earnest  represen- 
tations to  this  effect  were  promptly  sent  to  Rome  and  great  was 
the  relief  in  Trent  when  word  came  that  the  pope  was  of  the  same 
opinion  and  would  not  assent  to  the  execution  of  the  project.1 

Even  Philip's  fixity  of  purpose  gave  way  before  these  obstacles, 
but  he  delayed  long  before  yielding.  More  than  two  months  of 
anxiety  followed,  until  at  length,  on  November  8th,  he  wrote  to 
the  Duke  of  Sessa  that  his  report  as  to  the  condition  of  Milan  had 
been  confirmed  by  letters  furnished  by  the  Bishop  of  Cuenca. 
His  dextrous  management  in  preventing  the  envoys  from  coming 
was  praised  and,  in  conformity  with  his  judgement,  the  Bishop- 
elect  of  Salerno  was  ordered  not  to  leave  Trent  and  the  efforts  to 
obtain  faculties  for  him  from  the  pope  were  to  be  abandoned. 
The  duke  was  ordered  to  tell  the  people,  as  plausibly  as  he  could, 
that  Philip  had  never  had  the  intention  of  introducing  any  inno- 
vation in  the  procedure  of  the  Inquisition  but  only  to  appoint  an 
inquisitor  of  more  authority  and  with  larger  revenue,  who  could 
do  what  was  necessary  for  the  service  of  God  in  that  infected  time 
and  dangerous  neighborhood.  They  could  rely  that  there  would 
be  no  change  and  the  king  was  confident  that  so  Catholic  and 
zealous  a  community  would  do  its  duty  as  heretofore.2  The 

1  Lettere  del  Nunzio  Visconti,  n.  67,  68  (Baluz.  et  Mansi,  Miscell.,  Ill,  491-2).— 
Pallavicini,  Hist.  Concil.  Trident.,  Lib.  xxn,  cap.  viii,  n.  2-4. 

3  Archivio  civico-storico  a  S.  Carpofaro,  Armario  A,  Filza  vn,  n.  40  (see 
Appendix). 


RELATIONS  WITH  SWITZERLAND  129 

whole  letter  shows  how  unwillingly  he  withdrew  from  a  position 
that  had  become  untenable  and  how  hard  he  strove  to  obtain  a 
capitulation  with  the  honors  of  war. 

Philip's  failure  left  the  Milanese  Inquisition  in  its  unsatisfactory 
condition.  There  was  one  burning  question  especially  which 
refused  to  be  settled.  Political  considerations  of  the  greatest 
moment  required  the  maintenance  of  friendly  relations  with  the 
Catholic  Cantons  of  Switzerland,  but  the  Catholic  Cantons  were 
deeply  infected  with  heresy.  Moreover  the  financial  interests 
of  the  Milanese  called  for  free  commercial  intercourse  with  their 
northern  neighbors  while,  at  the  same  time,  the  rules  of  the  Inqui- 
sition forbade  the  residence  of  heretics  and  dealings  with  them. 
It  was  impossible  to  reconcile  the  irreconcileable — to  erect  a 
Chinese  wall  between  Lombardy  and  Switzerland,  as  the  Roman 
Holy  Office  desired,  and  at  the  same  time  to  retain  the  friendship 
of  the  Swiss  and  maintain  contentment  among  the  Lombards. 
Intolerance  had  to  yield  to  politics  and  commerce,  but  not  without 
perpetual  protest.  Tullio  Albonesi  writes,  April  12,  1564,  to 
Cardinal  Borromeo  that  he  had  presented  to  the  Duke  of  Sessa  the 
letter  asking  him  to  cease  employing  those  heretic  Orisons,  the 
Capitano  Hercole  Salice  and  his  sons  and  had  remonstrated  with 
him  in  accordance  with  the  information  received  from  the  inquis- 
itor. The  duke  was  to  depart  for  Spain  the  next  day,  but  took 
time  to  explain  that  the  pope  was  misinformed  as  to  his  wishing  to 
bring  heretics  to  reside  in  the  Milanese;  he  had  arranged  to  pay 
them  in  their  own  country  for  the  king's  service  and  had  given 
them  greater  privileges  of  trade  than  were  accorded  to  the  Orisons 
in  general  under  the  capitulations  and,  if  this  did  not  please  his 
Holiness,  he  must  treat  with  the  king  about  it.  Albonesi  adds 
that  he  reported  this  to  the  inquisitor  who  concluded  that  the 
only  way  to  stop  the  trade  of  these  heretics  with  the  Milanese 
was  for  the  pope  to  appeal  to  Philip.1  The  next  year  we  find  the 
Bishop  of  Brescia,  in  a  letter  to  Borromeo,  alluding  to  two  persons 


1  MSS.  of  Ambrosian  Library,  Tom.  54,  F.  104,  P.  Inf.  Lett.  48. 
9 


130  MILAN 

in  his  diocese  suspected  of  heresy  because  they  caused  scandal  by 
dealing  with  the  Orisons.1 

How  delicate  were  these  international  relations  and  how  little 
the  Inquisition  was  disposed  to  respect  them  are  manifest  in  an 
occurrence  some  years  later,  after  Cardinal  Borromeo  had  come 
to  reside  in  his  see.  In  visiting  some  Swiss  districts  of  his  province 
he  promulgated  some  regulations  displeasing  to  the  people,  who 
sent  an  ambassador  to  complain  to  the  Governor  of  Milan.  He 
took  lodgings  with  a  merchant  and,  as  soon  as  the  inquisitor  heard 
of  his  arrival,  he  arrested  and  threw  him  in  prison.  This  arrogant 
violation  of  the  law  of  nations  was  a  peculiarly  dangerous  blunder 
and,  as  soon  as  news  of  it  reached  the  governor  he  released  the 
envoy  from  prison  and  made  him  a  fitting  apology,  but  word  had 
already  been  carried  to  the  Swiss,  who  made  prompt  arrange- 
ments to  seize  the  cardinal.  Borromeo  escaped  by  a  few  hours, 
and  his  obnoxious  regulations  were  never  obeyed.2  How  com- 
pletely, in  his  eyes,  all  material  interests  were  to  be  disregarded, 
in  comparison  with  the  danger  of  infection  from  heresy,  is  to  be 
seen  in  a  pastoral  letter  addressed,  in  1580,  to  all  parish  priests — a 
letter  which  is  moreover  instructive  as  to  the  extent  to  which  the 
ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  trespassed  on  the  secular.  He  recites 
the  danger  to  the  faith  arising  from  those  who,  under  pretext  of 
business  or  other  pretence,  visit  heretical  lands,  where  they  may 
be  perverted,  and  on  their  return  spread  the  infection,  wherefore 
he  orders  that  no  one  shall  make  such  journeys  or  visits  without 
first  obtaining  a  licence  from  him  or  from  his  vicar-general  01 
from  the  inquisitor.  All  who  disobey  this  are  to  be  prosecuted 
by  the  Inquisition  as  suspect  of  heresy  and  are  to  be  penanced  at 
discretion.  This  letter  is  to  be  read  from  the  altar  on  three 
feast-days  and  subsequently  several  times  a  year,  while  the  priests 
are  further  ordered  to  investigate  and  report  within  a  month  all 
who  are  absent,  the  cause  of  their  going  and  the  length  of  their 


1  MSS.  of  Ambrosian  Library,  Tom.  56,  F.  106,  P.  Inf.  Lett.  211. 
1  Beccatini,  Istoria  dell'  Inquisizione,  p.  178. 


ZEAL  OF  SAN  CARLO  BORROMEO  131 

stay.1  The  question  was  one  which  refused  to  be  settled  and  was 
the  subject  of  repeated  decrees  by  the  Roman  Congregation,  which 
serve  to  explain  why  the  nations  subjected  to  the  Inquisition  fell 
behind  their  more  liberal  rivals  in  the  race  for  prosperity.2 

With  the  failure  to  introduce  the  Spanish  Inquisition,  Cardinal 
Borromeo  seems  to  have  felt  increased  responsibility  for  the  sup- 
pression of  heresy,  prompting  him  to  efforts  to  render  the  Milanese 
tribunal  more  efficient.  In  his  correspondence  of  1564  and  1565, 
we  find  him  paying  the  salary  of  the  inquisitor,  enlarging  the  archi- 
episcopal  prison  with  the  proceeds  of  confiscations  and  discussing 
the  transfer  of  the  Inquisition  from  the  monastery  of  le  Grazie 
to  the  archiepiscopal  palace,  where  it  would  be  more  conveniently 
and  honorably  established.  He  is  also  recognized  as  its  head,  for 
Fra  Felice  da  Colorno,  the  inquisitor  of  Como,  asks  his  instructions 
about  a  box  of  books  addressed  to  the  impious  Vergerio,  which 
he  has  found  among  those  hidden  by  the  Rev.  Don  Hippolito 
Chizzuola.3  In  fact,  the  Inquisition  of  the  period  seems  to  be  a 
curious  combination  of  the  inquisitorial  and  episcopal  jurisdic- 
tions. As  early  as  1549  we  find  the  Roman  Congregation  giving 
to  Antonio  Bishop  of  Trieste  a  commission  as  its  commissioner 
as  though  the  ordinary  jurisdiction  were  insufficient.4  In  1564 
Gasparo  Bishop  of  Asti  boasts  to  Cardinal  Borromeo  of  his  earnest 
labors  in  keeping  his  diocese  free  of  heresy,  although  the  neigh- 
boring ones  were  infected;  in  1565  Costaciario  Bishop  of  Acqui 
excuses  himself  for  delay  in  obeying  the  summons  to  the  first  pro- 
vincial council  (October  15th)  because  he  was  engaged  on  an  im- 
portant trial  of  a  heretic  whom  he  had  imprisoned;  in  November 
of  the  same  year  Bollani  Bishop  of  Brescia  writes  in  considerable 
dread  of  the  Signory  of  Venice  because  he  had  forced  the  podesta 
to  abjure  for  some  impudent  and  reckless  speeches;  he  throws 
the  responsibility  on  the  cardinal  and  begs  that  his  letter  may  be 

1  Acta  Eccles.  Mediolanens.,  I,  471  (Mediolani,  1843). 

3  MSS.  of  Ambrosian  Library,  H.  S.  VI,  29.— See  Appendix. 

1  Ibidem,  Tom.  54,  Vol.  68,  F,  104,  P.  Inf.  Lett.  63,  147,  163;  Tom.  55,  F,  105, 
Lett.  250. 

4  Ibidem,  C.  185,  P.  Inf.  Carta  14. 


132  MILAN 

burnt.  A  few  days  later  he  seems  much  relieved,  for  the  podesta 
has  apologized  and  he  describes  a  curious  assembly  "la  solita 
nostra  congrega  della  Santa  Inquisizione,"  which  he  was  accus- 
tomed to  hold  weekly  in  his  palace,  consisting  of  the  inquisitor, 
the  podesta,  the  rettori  (or  Venetian  governors)  and  some  others, 
when  the  inquisitor  rejoiced  them  by  reporting  that  there  were 
but  two  heretics  in  the  city,  one  of  whom  was  mentecaptus.1 

Evidently  Cardinal  Borromeo  was  stimulating  his  suffragans  to 
increased  zeal  and  activity  and  when,  in  1566,  he  came  to  reside 
in  Milan,  his  ardor  for  the  extermination  of  heresy  grew  apace, 
whether  through  his  own  convictions  or  through  the  impetuous 
urgency  of  the  new  Inquisitor-Pope,  St.  Pius  V,  whose  aim  was 
to  subject  the  whole  Christian  world  to  the  Holy  Office.2  There 
is  a  curious  memorandum  drawn  up  by  Borromeo,  detailing  the 

1  MSS.  of  Ambrosian  Library,  Tom.  44,  F,  94,  P.  Inf.  Lett.  72;  Tom.  56,  F,  106, 
Lett.  51,  206,  211. 

Brescia  formed  part  of  the  Venitian  territory,  in  which  these  weekly  conferences 
of  the  secular  and  inquisitorial  powers  were  prescribed.  When  the  Inquisition 
was  founded  in  the  thirteenth  century,  Venice  refused  it  admission,  but  in  1249 
it  organized  a  kind  of  secular  tribunal  against  heresy,  known  as  the  ire  Sam  dell' 
eresia  or  Assistenti.  At  length,  in  1289  it  admitted  an  inquisitor,  but  adjoined 
to  him  the  Assistenti,  who  were  not  to  partake  in  the  judgements  but  to  see  that 
he  did  not  overstep  his  proper  functions  and  to  lend  when  necessary  the  aid  of 
the  secular  arm.  As  the  mainland  territory  of  the  Republic  increased  and  the 
reorganized  papal  Inquisition  appointed  its  delegates  in  the  cities,  the  Signoria  in 
1548  provided  that  the  rettori  or  other  magistrates  in  each  place  should  coSperate 
with  the  inquisitor  and  bishop  as  assistenti.  Rome  took  umbrage  at  this  and  a 
prolonged  negotiation  ensued,  which  ended  with  the  assistenti  being  accepted, 
with  the  understanding  that  they  were  to  have  a  consultative  but  not  a  decisive 
vote.  This  gave  the  Signoria  power  to  curb  excesses  and  to  save  the  people  from 
being  harassed  with  inquisitorial  prosecutions  for  trifling  cases  of  sorcery,  bigamy, 
etc.,  which  were  so  bitterly  complained  of  elsewhere.  If  we  may  believe  Pdramo, 
when  Philip  failed  to  inflict  the  Spanish  Inquisition  on  Milan,  Pius  V  sought  to 
introduce  one  of  the  same  kind  in  Venice,  but  the  proposition  produced  so  alarm- 
ing a  popular  excitement  that  the  Signoria  prevailed  upon  him  to  abandon  the 
attempt,  promising  at  the  same  time  to  exercise  the  greatest  vigilance  in  the 
suppression  of  heresy. — Vettor  Sandi,  Principj  di  Storia  Civile  della  Repubblica 
di  Venezia,  Lib.  x,  cap.  iii,  art.  3  (Venizia,  1756). — Albizzi,  Riposta  alP  Historia 
della  Sacra  Inquisitione  del  R.  P.  Paolo  Servita,  pp.  40-58  (Ed.  n,  s.  1.  e.  d.}. — 
P&ramo  de  Orig.  Off.  S.  Inquis.,  p.  266. — Natalis  Comitis  Historiar.,  Lib.  xiv, 
ann.  1564. 

J  Sec  Appendix  for  a  decree  of  Pius  V,  issued  within  a  few  months  of  his  acces- 
sion. 


SAN  CARLO  BORROMEWS  ACTIVITY  133 

matters  to  be  enquired  into  in  episcopal  visitations,  which  shows 
that  the  persecution  of  heresy,  the  efficiency  of  the  Inquisition, 
the  avoidance  of  communication  with  heretics  and  the  observances 
of  the  faith  were  regarded  by  him  as  the  points  of  first  importance.1 
In  1568  he  was  suddenly  summoned  to  Mantua  as  the  most  fitting 
person  to  put  the  Inquisition  there  into  working  order.  The 
duke,  Guillelmo  Gonzaga,  was  liberally  inclined  and  had  long 
given  trouble  to  the  Holy  Office.  Pius  V,  soon  after  his  accession, 
in  1566,  had  been  moved  to  pious  wrath  by  his  refusal  to  send  to 
Rome  two  heretics  for  trial.  A  threat  to  bring  him  to  terms  by 
open  war  failed  and  Pius  would  have  proceeded  to  extremities,  had 
he  not  been  dissuaded  by  the  other  Italian  princes.2  He  contented 
himself  with  sending  orders  to  the  inquisitor  there,  Fra  Ambrogio 
Aldegato,  to  clear  the  city  of  heretics,  who  were  numerous,  but 
the  frate  was  old;  he  shrank  from  the  struggle  and,  pleading  age 
and  infirmity,  he  asked  to  be  relieved.  Pius  gave  him  the  bishop- 
ric of  Casale  and  extended  over  Mantua  the  jurisdiction  of  Fra 
Camillo  Campeggio,  styled  Inquisitor-general  of  Ferrara,  who  had 
doubtless  been  selected  as  a  man  of  vigor  for  that  post,  in  view 
of  the  encouragement  to  the  reform  given  not  long  before  by 
Rene*e  de  France,  the  Duchess  of  Ferrara.  The  new  inquisitor 
was  not  favorably  regarded  by  Gonzaga,  who  interfered  with  the 
public  penances  and  abjurations  imposed  by  him,  who  was  slack 
in  obeying  his  commands  to  make  arrests  and  who  even  allowed 
suspected  heretics  to  escape.  Campeggio  was  more  earnest  than 
respectful  in  his  remonstrances  and  mutual  ill-will  increased  until, 
on  Christmas  night  of  1567,  some  sons  of  Belial  slew  two  Domini- 
cans who  had  doubtless  been  overzealous  in  aiding  the  inquisitor. 


1  See  Appendix. 

*  Bzovii  Annales,  ann.  1566,  n.  88.  This  may  very  probably  have  been  the 
occasion  of  the  decree  just  referred  to. 

Yet  the  duke,  in  1567,  offered  no  opposition  when  Pius  V  ordered  him  to  send  to 
Rome  for  trial  the  canon  Ceruti,  who,  in  1569,  was  condemned  to  the  galleys  for 
life.  He  could  not  have  been  a  Protestant  for  his  chief  heresy  was  the  denial 
of  immortality.  The  intercession  of  the  duke  however,  in  1572,  procured  his 
liberation  and  permission  to  keep  his  house  in  Mantua  as  a  prison. — Bertolotti, 
Martin  del  Libero  Pensiero,  pp.  43-5  (Roma,  1891). 


134  MILAN 

No  active  efforts  were  made  to  detect  the  assassins;  some  higher 
authority  was  evidently  needed  and  Pius  V,  by  a  brief  of  February 
12,  1568,  ordered  Cardinal  Borromeo  to  go  there  with  all  speed,  to 
bring  the  duke  to  obedience  and  to  sit  with  the  inquisitor  in  the 
trial  of  cases.  Borromeo  lost  no  time  in  obeying  the  mandate  and, 
on  his  arrival  he  gave  the  duke  to  understand  that  the  pope's 
determination  was  unalterable;  he  would  rather  see  all  Domini- 
cans cut  to  pieces,  and  all  Dominican  convents  burnt,  than  that 
heresy  should  go  unpunished  in  Mantua.  It  required  resolute 
action  for  there  were  heretics  high-placed  in  both  Church  and 
State ;  a  company  of  sbirri  had  to  be  borrowed  from  Bologna,  but 
Borromeo  succeeded  in  breaking  down  all  opposition.  Already, 
by  May  16th,  he  was  able  to  report  that  his  mission  was  accom- 
plished and  that  his  presence  was  no  longer  needed.  On  May  21st 
he  writes  that  the  duke  has  come  humbly  to  the  inquisitor  to  beg 
for  release  from  prison  and  sanbenito  of  two  penitents,  which  was 
granted,  seeing  that  they  had  already  been  compelled  to  abjure 
publicly.  As  the  pope  had  rewarded  Campeggio  with  the  bishop- 
ric of  Sutri  and  Nepi,  the  duke  had  at  once  begged  that  the  place 
might  be  filled  by  Fra  Angelo,  the  vicar  of  the  Inquisition,  to  all 
of  which  the  cardinal  points  triumphantly  as  showing  how  the 
ducal  temper  had  changed.  Possibly  some  explanation  of  this 
may  be  sought  in  a  request  from  the  duke  that  the  confiscations 
should  be  made  over  to  him,  which  Borromeo  was  willing  to  meet 
in  so  far  as  to  suggest  that  he  be  allowed  one  half.  Another 
reason  may  perhaps  be  discerned  in  his  apprehension  of  an  attack 
by  the  Duke  of  Savoy,  for,  on  June  4th,  Borromeo  writes  that  he 
had  asked  for  the  support  of  the  papacy  in  such  contingency.  Be 
this  as  it  may,  Borromeo  was  able  in  June  to  return  to  Milan, 
leaving  the  Inquisition  firmly  established  in  Mantua.1 

1  MSS.  of  Ambrosian  Library,  Tom.  5,  F,  41,  and  F,  177,  P.  Inf. 

Catena  relates  (Vita  di  Pio  V,  p.  157)  that  an  heretical  preacher  of  Morbegno 
in  the  Valtelline,  named  Francesco  Cellaria  was  accustomed  to  visit  Mantua 
secretly  as  a  missionary,  where  he  had  relations  with  some  of  the  nobles.  To  put 
an  end  to  this,  Pius  sent  in  disguise  the  Dominican  Piero  Angelo  Casannova  to 
the  Valtelline  with  instructions  for  his  capture.  With  a  band  of  eight  men 


SAN  CARLO  BORROMEO'S  ACTIVITY  135 

It  is  an  indication  of  his  predominating  zeal  for  the  extirpation 
of  heresy  that  when,  on  May  16th,  he  begged  permission  to  return 
to  Milan,  the  reason  he  assigned  was  that  he  was  wanted  there  for 
the  long-protracted  trial  of  Nicholas  Cid.  This  was  a  case  which 
had  for  years  been  occupying  the  Milanese  Inquisition.  The 
accused  was  treasurer-general  of  the  Spanish  forces,  in  whose 
favor  Cesare  Gonzaga  wrote,  November  2,  1565,  to  the  cardinal, 
repeating  what  he  had  frequently  stated  before,  that  it  was  a 
persecution  arising  from  malignity.1  This  ardor  for  the  purity 
of  the  faith  did  not  diminish  with  time.  In  his  second  provincial 
council,  held  in  1569,  the  first  decree  requires  the  bishops  to  pro- 
mulgate an  edict  to  be  read  in  all  the  parish  churches,  on  the  first 
Sundays  in  Lent  and  Advent,  calling  upon  all  persons,  under  pain 
of  excommunication,  to  denounce  within  ten  days,  to  the  bishop 
or  inquisitor,  any  case  of  heresy  or  of  reading  forbidden  books 
that  may  come  to  their  knowledge.  His  own  formula  for  this, 
in  1572,  is  very  stringent,  insisting  on  the  denunciation  of  every 
heretic  act  or  suspicious  word.2 

It  is  evident  that  thus  far  the  episcopal  jurisdiction  over  heresy 
was  not  superseded  by  the  inquisitorial,  but  that  both  worked  in 
harmony  and,  between  the  two,  it  may  be  questioned  whether 
the  Milanese  gained  much  in  escaping  the  Spanish  Inquisition. 
As  the  Roman  organization  perfected  itself  throughout  Northern 
Italy,  Milan  naturally  was  a  centre  of  activity,  as  a  sort  of  bulwark 
against  the  influence  of  Switzerland.  The  troubles  arising  from 
the  inevitable  commercial  intercourse  with  the  heretics,  and  the 
capitulations  which  provided  for  the  residence  of  traders  on  each 

Casannova  kidnapped  him  at  Bocca  d'Adda,  as  he  was  returning  from  Coire  to 
Morbegno,  hurried  him  to  Piacenza  whence  Duke  Ottavio  Farnese  transmitted  him 
to  Rome.  There  he  was  condemned  to  be  burnt  alive  but  at  the  last  moment 
he  weakened  and  recanted,  so  that  he  was  strangled  before  burning.  He  had 
been  forced  to  name  his  accomplices  in  Mantua  and  other  cities,  and  immediate 
steps  were  taken  for  securing  them.  The  Orisons  complained  loudly  of  this 
invasion  of  their  territory,  but  the  Duke  of  Alburquerque,  then  Governor  of 
Milan  (1564-71),  replied  that  the  papal  jurisdiction  over  heresy  was  supreme  in 
all  lands. 

1  MSS.  of  Ambrosian  Library,  Tom.  56,  F,  106,  P.  Inf.  Lett.  140. 

3  Acta  Eccles.  Mediolanens.  I,  67,  469. 


136  MILAN 

side,  continued  to  be  a  source  of  perpetual  anxiety  and  vigilance. 
Then  the  transit  of  merchandise  had  to  be  watched;  everything 
destined  for  Milan  had  to  be  opened  and  searched  for  heretic 
literature,  but  packages  in  transmission  were  allowed  to  pass 
through,  relying  upon  examination  at  the  points  of  destination. 
Correspondence  by  mail  was  also  the  subject  of  much  solicitude. 
In  1588  the  Congregation  of  the  Inquisition  was  excited  by  the 
news  that  the  heretic  Cantons  proposed  to  establish  in  the  Valtel- 
line  a  school  for  instruction  in  their  doctrines,  whereupon  it  wrote 
urgent  letters  and  threatened  to  cut  off  all  intercourse  if  the  project 
was  not  abandoned.  In  the  same  year  it  wrote  to  the  Milanese 
inquisitor  favoring  warmly  the  plan  of  rewarding  those  who  would 
capture  and  deliver  to  the  tribunal  heretic  preachers  and  promis- 
ing to  pay  for  "  this  holy  and  pious  work"  according  to  the  impor- 
tance of  the  victims  kidnapped,  but  it  uttered  a  warning  that  this 
had  better  not  be  attempted  in  the  Orisons,  for  fear  of  reprisals 
that  would  ruin  the  Catholic  churches  and  monasteries  there.  In 
1593  the  tribunal  was  reminded  that,  while  the  capitulations  per- 
mitted the  residence  of  heretic  merchants  from  the  Orisons  and 
Switzerland,  the  privilege  was  confined  to  them  and  all  others 
must  be  prosecuted  and  punished.  As  for  Milanese  who  desire 
to  go  to  Switzerland,  returning  home  several  times  a  year,  they 
are  to  be  watched,  and  licences  are  not  to  be  given  to  reside  in 
places  where  they  cannot  have  access  to  Catholic  priests.  Then, 
in  1597,  there  was  fresh  excitement  over  an  edict  of  the  Three 
Leagues,  prohibiting  the  residence  in  the  Valtelline  of  foreign 
priests  and  friars.  In  1599  the  zeal  of  the  Milanese  tribunal  seems 
to  have  provoked  reclamations  on  the  part  of  the  Swiss,  for  the 
inquisitor  was  ordered  not  to  molest  the  heretic  merchants  but  to 
observe  the  capitulations  strictly.  This  was  doubtless  part  of 
an  outburst  of  persecution  for,  in  1600,  orders  were  given  to  seize 
and  retain  the  children  of  the  heretics  who  had  fled  to  Switzerland.1 


1  Decreta  Sac.  Congr.  Sti.  Officii,  pp.  217-20  (R.  Archivio  di  Stato  in  Roma, 
Fondo  Camerale,  Congr.  del  S.  Offizio,  Vol.  3). 

Under  Venetian  rule  when,  in  1579,  the  inquisitor  at  Treviso  was  about  to 
publish  an  edict  prohibiting  departure  for  heretic  lands  without  his  licence,  the 


EXTINCTION  137 

It  is  evident  that  the  Milanese  tribunal  had  ample  work  in 
protecting  the  faith  from  hostile  invasion.  Its  activity  continued 
under  the  Spanish  Hapsburgs  until,  in  1707,  the  genius  of  Prince 
Eugene  won  Lombardy  for  Austria,  as  an  incident  in  the  War  of 
the  Spanish  Succession.  It  still  existed  on  sufferance  until  the 
eighteenth  century  was  well  advanced.  In  1771  Maria  Theresa 
foreshadowed  the  end  by  ordering  that  no  future  vacancies  should 
be  filled  and  by  suppressing  the  affiliated  Order  of  the  Crocesignati, 
whose  property  was  assigned  to  the  support  of  orphanages.  This 
was  followed  by  a  decree  of  March  9, 1775,  declaring  that  the  exist- 
ence of  such  an  independent  jurisdiction  was  incompatible  with 
the  supremacy  and  good  order  of  the  State,  wherefore  it  was 
abolished  and,  as  the  inquisitors  and  their  vicars  should  die,  their 
salaries  should  be  applied  to  the  orphanages.1  Thus  passed  away 
the  oldest  surviving  Inquisition,  which  may  be  said  to  date  from 
1232,  when  we  find  Fra  Alberico  commissioned  as  Inquisitor  of 
Lombardy.  

podesta  and  captain  of  the  city  prevented  it,  for  which  they  were  praised  by  the 
Signoria  and  similarly  the  rettore  of  Bergamo  was  rebuked  for  permitting  it. — 
Cecchetti,  La  Republica  di  Venezia  e  la  Corte  di  Roma,  I,  23  (Venezia,  1874). 

Fra  Paolo  tells  us  that  in  1595  Clement  VII  issued  a  decree  forbidding  any 
Italian  to  visit  a  place  where  there  was  not  a  Catholic  church  and  pastor,  without 
a  licence  from  the  inquisitors.  The  result  of  this  was  that  traders  returning  from 
heretic  lands  were  watched,  reports  were  sent  to  Rome  and  they  were  publicly 
cited  to  appear  there.  The  transalpine  countries  took  offence  at  this  and  then 
the  public  citations  were  made  at  the  residence  of  the  parties.  Venice  sought  to 
diminish  the  evil  effect  of  this  on  commerce  by  forbidding  public  citations  in 
such  cases. — Sarpi,  Historia  dell'  Inquisizione,  p.  77  (Serravalle,  1638). 

Simply  trading  with  heretics,  sending  to  or  receiving  from  them  merchandise, 
money  or  letters  constituted  fautorship  of  heresy  and  subjected  the  trader  to 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Inquisition. — Masini,  Sacro  Arsenale  overo  Prattica  dell' 
Officio  della  S.  Inquisizione,  Roma,  1639,  p.  16. 

1  MSS.  of  Ambrosian  Library,  H.  S.  vi,  29. — Le  Bret,  Magazin  zum  Gebrauch 
der  Staaten-  und  Kirchengeschichte,  Sechste  Theil,  101  (Frankfurt,  1777). 

During  the  18th  century  the  powers  of  the  Inquisition  were  greatly  limited 
by  the  civil  authorities.  In  Tuscany  we  learn,  in  1746,  that  in  Florence  and 
Siena  no  arrest  or  imprisonment  could  be  made  by  it  without  the  assent  of  the 
Government. — Consulta  fatta  dalla  Real  Camera  di  S.  Chiara,  in  Napoli  (MS. 
penes  me). 


CHAPTER    V. 

THE  CANARIES.1 

IN  1402  Jean  de  Bethencourt,  an  adventurer  from  Normandy, 
discovered  or  rediscovered  the  Canaries  and  made  himself  master 
of  the  islands  of  Lanzarote,  Fuerteventura,  Gomera  and  Hierro. 
After  various  changes  of  ownership,  they  fell  to  the  crown  of 
Castile,  and  Isabella  undertook  the  conquest  of  the  remainder  of 
the  group,  the  Grand  Canary,  Tenerife  and  la  Palma.  The  sturdy 
resistance  of  the  native  Guanches  rendered  the  enterprise  an 
arduous  one,  consuming  eighteen  years,  and  it  was  not  until  1496 
that  it  was  finally  accomplished.  That  Columbus,  on  his  first 
voyage,  took  his  departure  from  Gomera  indicates  the  importance 
assumed  by  the  Canaries  in  the  development  of  trade  with  the 
New  World  and  this,  conjoined  with  their  productiveness,  as 
they  became  settled  and  cultivated,  rendered  them  a  centre  of 
commerce  frequented  by  the  ships  of  all  maritime  nations,  as 
well  as  an  object  of  buccaneering  raids,  in  an  age  when  trade  and 
piracy  were  sometimes  indistinguishable.  Their  proximity  to 
Morocco  and  the  Guinea  coast  moreover  exposed  them  to  attacks 
from  the  Moors  and  gave  them  an  opportunity  of  accumulating 
Moorish  and  negro  slaves,  whom  the  piety  of  the  age  sought  to 

1  The  tribunal  of  the  Canaries  was  reckoned  among  those  of  Castile  and  most 
of  the  new  material  in  my  possession  concerning  it  has  been  embodied  in  the 
"History  of  the  Inquisition  of  Spain."  Its  insular  position,  however,  and  the 
consequent  attraction  of  foreign  merchants  and  sea-faring  men,  rendered  its 
career  somewhat  peculiar,  and  it  has  seemed  worth  while  to  devote  a  chapter  to 
it,  based  on  two  works — 

Historia  de  la  Inquisicion  en  las  Idas  Canarias,  por  Agustin  Millares,  4  vols., 
Las  Palmas  de  Gran-Canaria,  1874. 

Catalogue  of  a  Collection  of  Original  Manuscripts  formerly  belonging  to  the 
Holy  Office  of  the  Inquisition  in  the  Canary  Islands  and  now  in  the  possession 
of  the  Marquis  of  Bute.  By  W.  De  Gray  Birch,  LL.D.,  2  vols.,  Edinburgh  and 
London,  1903. 

(139) 


140  THE  CANARIES 

convert  into  Christians  by  the  water  of  baptism.  In  various 
ways,  therefore,  there  came  to  be  abundant  material  for  inquisi- 
torial activity,  although  the  Judaizing  New  Christians,  who  fur- 
nished the  Spanish  tribunals  with  their  principal  business,  appear 
to  have  been  singularly  few. 

There  was  no  haste  in  extending  the  Spanish  Inquisition  to 
the  Canaries.  As  early  as  1406  a  bishopric  had  been  founded  in 
Lanzarote,  subsequently  transferred  to  Las  Palmas  in  the  Grand 
Canary,  which  was  regarded  as  the  capital  of  the  group.  If  the 
successive  bishops,  who,  with  more  or  less  regularity,  filled  the 
see,  exercised  their  episcopal  jurisdiction  over  heresy,  their  labors 
have  left  no  trace.  It  is  not  until  the  time  of  Diego  de  Muros, 
who  was  consecrated  in  1496,  that  we  have  any  evidence  of  such 
action.  That  stirring  prelate,  who  held  a  diocesan  synod  in  1497, 
announced,  April  25,  1499,  that,  as  inquisitor  by  his  ordinary 
authority,  he  would  have  inquest  made  in  some  of  the  islands  into 
heresy  and  Judaism  and  other  crimes  against  the  faith.  What 
was  the  result,  we  have  no  means  of  knowing  except  a  confession 
made,  on  May  22d,  by  Isabel  Ramirez,  of  having  taught  a  super- 
stitious prayer  which  was  regarded  as  sorcery.  It  is  probable 
that  Bishop  Muros  was  warned  that  he  was  invading  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Holy  Office,  for  he  sent  the  papers  in  the  case  to 
the  tribunal  of  Seville.1  It  is  noteworthy  that,  after  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Canary  tribunal,  the  bishops  and  their  provisors  long 
continued  to  use  the  title  of  "ordinary"  inquisitor,  to  which  no 
exception  seems  to  have  been  taken,  although  elsewhere  it  was 
contested  and  forbidden.  The  latest  occasion  of  its  employment 
with  which  I  have  met  occurs  in  1672.2 

It  was  not  until  1505  that  the  Suprema  bethought  itself  of 
establishing  a  tribunal  in  the  Canaries,  when  Inquisitor-general 
Deza  appointed  as  inquisitor  Bartolome*  Lopez  Tribaldos.  The 
first  entry  in  his  register  is  dated  Tuesday,  October  28,  1505,  and 
the  earliest  record  that  we  have  of  his  activity  is  in  1507,  when 
there  were  two  reconciliations,  one  of  Juan  de  Ler,  a  Portuguese, 

1  Birch,  I,  5,  7-8.  »  Millares,  I,  95-6.— Birch,  I,  160-7,  173. 


SUBORDINATION  TO  SEVILLE  141 

for  Judaism,  and  the  other  of  Ana  Rodriguez,  a  native,  for  sor- 
ceries, whose  sanbenitos  were  duly  hung  in  the  cathedral.1  What 
were  the  exact  powers  conferred  on  Tribaldos  we  have  no  means 
of  knowing,  but  they  must  have  been  exceedingly  limited,  and  for 
a  long  time  the  tribunal  continued  to  be  in  close  dependence  on 
that  of  Seville.  When,  about  1520,  Martin  Ximenes,  fiscal  of  the 
Seville  tribunal,  came  to  Las  Palmas  in  the  combined  capacity 
of  precentor  of  the  Cathedral,  provisor  and  inquisitor,  he  left  as 
his  deputy  fiscal  in  Seville  Doctor  Fernando  de  Zamora,  thus  not 
abandoning  that  office.  Even  as  late  as  1548  we  chance  to  have 
the  record  of  a  consulta  de  fe  held  by  the  Seville  tribunal,  January 
13th,  to  decide  on  certain  informations  and  cases  sent  to  it  by  the 
Canary  inquisitor  Padilla.  In  the  affair  of  Juan  Alonso,  a  Morisco, 
it  was  ordered  that  he  should  be  arrested  and  tried,  when  the  result 
was  to  be  reported  for  action.  In  that  of  Juan  Fernandez,  he 
was  to  be  summoned  and  examined  as  to  his  blasphemy  and  then 
be  penanced  at  the  discretion  of  Padilla  and  the  Ordinary.  Leo- 
nor  de  Lera  was  to  be  arrested  and  tried  and  the  result  be  sub- 
mitted. The  case  of  Diego  Martinez  had  apparently  been  con- 
cluded under  Padilla,  for  the  Seville  consulta  sentenced  him  to 
twelve  years  of  galley  service.2  Thus  every  act,  from  the  prelimi- 
nary arrest  to  the  final  decision,  was  regulated  from  Seville.  To 
render  the  position  still  more  anomalous  we  hear  of  an  inquisidor 
ordinariOj  Alonso  Vivas,  Prior  of  the  cathedral,  commissioned, 
in  October,  1523,  to  try  cases  of  faith  throughout  the  Grand 
Canary  as  he  had  already  done  in  Telde  and  Aguimes.3 

Irregular  and  imperfect  as  may  have  been  the  organization  of 
the  tribunal,  it  yet  managed  to  accomplish  some  convictions.  In 
1510  there  was  held  an  auto  de  fe  in  which  there  were  three  recon- 
ciliations for  Judaism  and  one,  of  a  Moorish  slave,  for  reincidence 
in  Mahometan  error,  while  a  fifth  culprit  was  penanced  for  Juda- 
ism.4 Then  in  1513  occurred  the  first  relaxation,  that  of  Alonso 
Fatima,  a  native  Morisco,  who  had  fled  to  Barbary.  This  was 

1  Birch,  I,  6.— Millares,  I,  71.  3  Birch,  I,  1,  67. 

8  Millares,  I,  79.  *  Millares,  I,  75. 


142  THE  CANARIES 

always  deemed  sufficient  evidence  of  relapse  to  former  errors, 
and  he  was  duly  burned  in  effigy.  It  was  probably  also  to  1516 
that  may  be  attributed  the  first  relaxation  in  person — that  of 
Juan  de  Xeres  of  Seville,  for  Judaism.  It  shows  that  the  tribunal 
was  indifferently  equipped  that,  when  he  was  sentenced  to  torture, 
the  physician  whose  presence  was  obligatory  on  such  occasions, 
Doctor  Juan  Meneses  de  Gallegas,  was  required  personally  to 
administer  it.  It  was  exceedingly  severe,  extending  to  eleven 
jars  of  water;  the  accused  was  unable  to  endure  it;  he  confessed 
his  faith,  was  sentenced  to  relaxation  as  a  relapsed  and  for 
fictitious  confession,  and  was  executed  on  Wednesday,  June  4th.1 
Martin  Ximenes  seems  to  have  performed  his  duties  with  com- 
mendable energy.  He  commenced  by  making  an  alphabetical 
register  of  all  the  parties  denounced  under  his  predecessor,  com- 
prising 139  individuals,  besides  various  groups,  such  as  "the 
Confesos  and  Moriscos  of  Lanzarote,"  "other  Confesos,  their 
kindred,"  "certain  persons  of  Hierro"  etc.,  which  indicate  how 
slovenly  had  been  the  procedure.2  He  made  a  visitation  of  Tene- 
rife  and  la  Palma,  from  which  he  returned  with  ample  store  of 
fresh  denunciations.3  May  29,  1524,  all  the  dignitaries,  civil  and 
ecclesiastical,  and  all  the  people  were  assembled  in  the  church  of 
Santa  Ana,  where  an  edict  was  read  commanding  them  to  render 
aid  and  favor  to  the  Inquisition,  and  an  oath  to  that  effect  was 
administered.  There  was  also  an  Edict  of  Grace,  promising  relief 
from  confiscation  to  all  who  would  come  forward  and  confess  as 
to  themselves  and  others;  also  an  Edict  of  Faith  requiring  denun- 
ciation of  errors  and  specifying  the  various  kinds  of  blasphemies 
and  sorceries  and  the  distinctive  Jewish  and  Moorish  rites;  and 
finally  an  edict  reciting  that  the  Con  versos  were  emigrating  and 
forbidding  their  leaving  the  islands  and  all  ship-masters  from 
carrying  away  suspected  persons  without  licence  from  him,  under 
the  penalties  of  fautorship  and  of  forfeiting  their  vessels.4 

1  Birch,  I,  91,  92-4.  In  the  record  concerning  Juan  de  Xeres,  the  year  is 
omitted,  but  as  Wednesday  fell  on  June  4  in  1511,  1516,  1533  and  1539.  the 
probable  date  is  1516 

'  Birch,  1, 1-5.  «  Millares,  I,  82.  «  Birch,  I,  15-33. 


TRIVIAL  CASES  143 

The  terror  inspired  by  the  activity  of  Ximenes  may  be  estimated 
from  a  single  instance.  On  May  21st,  Ynes  de  Tarifa  came 
before  him  to  confess  that  when,  a  couple  of  months  before,  she 
had  heard  of  the  burning  in  Seville  of  her  son-in-law  Alonso 
Hernandez  and  of  his  brother  Francisco,  she  recalled  that  after 
meals  Alonso  used  to  read  to  Francisco  out  of  a  book  in  an  un- 
known tongue  and,  if  she  had  erred  in  not  denouncing  this  to  the 
Seville  tribunal,  she  begged  to  be  treated  mercifully.1  The  publi- 
cation of  the  edicts  throughout  the  islands  brought  in  an  abun- 
dant store  of  denunciations,  the  record  for  eight  months,  from 
September  13,  1524,  to  May  15,  1526,  amounting  to  167.  They 
were  nearly  all  of  petty  sorceries  by  women,  in  sickness  or  love 
affairs,  but  with  an  occasional  blasphemy  or  suspicion  of  Judaism, 
and  persons  of  station  were  not  exempted,  for  the  list  comprises 
the  Adelantado  Don  Pedro  de  Lugo  and  his  wife  Elvira  Diaz,  the 
Dean  Juan  de  Alarcon,  the  Prior  Alonso  Bivas  and  others  of 
position.  The  adelantado,  in  fact,  was  dead,  but  the  accusation 
against  his  memory  is  sufficiently  significant  of  the  prevailing 
temper  to  be  worth  relating.  The  Bachiller  Diego  de  Funes 
came  forward,  by  command  of  his  confessor,  to  state  that  when 
Diego  de  San  Martin  was  holding  for  ransom  a  Judio  de  senal  (one 
obliged  to  wear  a  distinctive  mark)  who  had  been  caught  on  his 
way  to  Portugal,  the  captive  was  starving  to  death  because  he 
could  not  eat  meat  slaughtered  by  Christians :  de  Lugo  charitably 
gave  him  a  sheep  to  kill  according  to  his  rites  and  even  himself 
ate  some  of  the  mutton.  These  petty  cases  kept  Ximenes  busy 
and  he  despatched  them  with  promptness;  the  punishments  as  a 
rule  were  not  severe — in  one  or  two  cases  scourging  or  vergiienza, 
but  mostly  small  fines,  exile  and  occasionally  spiritual  penances.2 

There  were,  however,  cases  in  which  the  faith  demanded  more 
exemplary  vindication.  The  island  of  Grand  Canary,  from  1523 
to  1532,  was  ravaged  with  pestilence  creating  great  misery. 
Among  other  causes  of  divine  wrath  the  people  included  the  secret 
apostasy  of  the  Portuguese  New  Christians  and  of  the  Moorish 

1  Birch,  I,  33.  l  Ibidem,  34-64. 


144  THE  CANARIES 

slaves,  and  demanded  severe  measures  for  its  repression.  It  may 
have  been  with  an  idea  of  placating  God  that  Ximenes,  on  February 
24,  1526,  celebrated  the  first  auto  publico  general  de  fe  with  great 
solemnity,  in  which  all  the  nobles  of  the  island  assisted  as  famil- 
iars. The  occasion  was  impressive,  for  there  were  seven  Juda- 
izers  relaxed  in  person  and  burnt,  there  were  ten  reconciliations, 
of  which  five  were  of  Moorish  baptized  slaves,  four  were  for 
Judaism  and  one  of  a  Genoese  heretic,  in  addition  to  which  there 
were  two  blasphemers  penanced.1 

This  is  the  last  that  we  hear  of  Ximenes,  whose  place,  in  1527, 
was  filled  by  Luis  de  Padilla,  treasurer  of  the  cathedral.  For 
awhile  he  imitated  his  predecessor's  activity  and,  on  June  4,  1530, 
another  oblation  was  offered  to  God,  in  an  auto  celebrated  with 
the  same  ostentation  as  the  previous  one.  This  time  there  were 
no  relaxations  in  person,  but  there  were  six  effigies  burnt  of  as 
many  Moorish  slaves,  who  had  escaped  and  were  drowned  in  their 
infidelity  while  on  their  way  to  Africa  and  liberty.  There  were 
also  the  effigy  and  bones  of  Juan  de  Tarifa,  the  husband  of  the 
Ynes  de  Tarifa  who  had  denounced  herself  in  1524;  he  was  of 
Converso  descent  and  had  committed  suicide  in  prison,  which  was 
equivalent  to  self-condemnation.  There  were  three  reconcilia- 
tions, of  which  two  were  for  Judaism  and  one  for  Islam  and  five 
penitents  for  minor  offences.2  The  next  auto  was  held  on  May  23, 
1534,  in  which  there  were  two  relaxations  of  effigies  for  Judaism 
and  twenty-five  reconciliations — twenty-four  of  Moriscos  and  one 
of  a  Judaizer.  One  of  the  relaxations  carries  with  it  a  warning, 
for  it  was  of  Costanza  Garza,  who  had  died  in  1533  during  her 
trial.  When  too  late  her  innocence  was  discovered  and  the 
Suprema  humanely  rehabilitated  her  memory  and  her  children, 
and  ordered  the  restoration  of  her  confiscated  estate.3 

Whether  this  aggressive  vindication  of  the  faith  put  an  end  to 
heresy  or  whether  Padilla  had  exhausted  his  energies,  it  would 
be  impossible  now  to  say,  but  after  this  auto  the  tribunal  sank 


1  Millares,  I,  87-92.        »  Ibidem,  96-100.        8  Ibidem,  103-7.— Birch,  I,  90. 


TEMPORAR  Y  SUSPENSION  145 

into  lethargy  so  complete  that  on  February  8,  1538,  the  chapter 
notified  Padilla  and  the  secretary,  Canon  Alonso  de  San  Juan, 
that  the  revenues  of  their  prebends  were  stopped,  for  they  did  not 
assist  in  the  choir  and  it  was  notorious  that  the  Holy  Office  had 
nothing  to  do.1  Possibly  this  may  have  stimulated  action,  but 
we  have  seen  that  in  1548  the  tribunal  was  merely  collecting 
evidence  and  obeying  the  instructions  of  the  Seville  Inquisition. 
Under  this  there  was  an  accumulation  of  culprits  for  an  auto  held 
in  1557,  where  there  were  seventeen  effigies  burnt  of  fugitives — 
all  Moriscos,  except  a  Fleming,  Julian  Cornelis  Vandyk.  There 
were  also  four  Moriscos  reconciled,  one  of  them,  curiously  enough, 
for  so-called  Calvinism.2  This  seems  to  have  exhausted  whatever 
remains  of  energy  Padilla  possessed  for  we  hear  of  no  further 
action  by  him,  except  a  quarrel  with  the  royal  Audiencia  in  1562, 
but  nevertheless  the  tribunal  shared  in  the  suppression  of  pre- 
bends, and  a  papal  brief  assigning  one  to  it  was  presented  to  the 
chapter,  August  27,  1563,  thus  adding  another  efficient  cause  of 
dissension  between  them.3  Soon  after  this  the  tribunal  virtually 
ceased  to  exist.  In  1565  there  was  a  curious  case,  of  which  more 
hereafter,  of  John  Sanders,  an  English  sailor.  It  was  carried  on 
wholly  by  the  episcopal  provisor,  during  the  absence  of  the  bishop 
Diego  Deza.  There  were  arrest,  sequestration  and  the  collection 
of  voluminous  testimony,  which  was  carefully  sealed  and  des- 
patched to  Bishop  Deza,  to  be  handed  to  the  Seville  tribunal. 
Throughout  it  all,  there  is  no  trace  of  participation  by  the  local 
Inquisition,  which,  in  the  consuming  jealousy  of  episcopal  en- 
croachments, could  not  possibly  have  been  the  case  had  there  been 
a  tribunal  in  the  Canaries.4 

The  policy  followed  thus  far  had  evidently  proved  a  failure, 
and  Inquisitor-general  Espinosa  resolved  to  reorganize  the  tribu- 
nal and  render  it  independent  of  Seville.  The  fiscal  of  Toledo, 
Diego  Ortiz  de  Funez,  was  selected  and  was  sent  out  as  a  full 
inquisitor,  with  the  unusual  powers  of  selecting  and  removing  his 

1  Millares,  1, 109-10.  J  Ibidem,  I,  115-18 

1  Ibidem,  I,  125.  4  Birch,  II,  1018-26. 

10 


146  THE  CANARIES 

subordinates,  while  subjected  only  to  the  requirement  of  reporting 
his  acts  to  the  Suprema.  The  royal  letters  commanding  obedience 
to  him  are  dated  October  10,  1567,  and  he  left  Madrid  in  the 
Spring  of  1568,  landing  at  Las  Isletas  on  April  17th.  Four  days 
later  he  started  for  Las  Palmas,  accompanied  in  procession  by  all 
the  dignitaries,  secular  and  ecclesiastical,  of  the  island.  On  May 
1st  all  the  population  was  summoned,  under  pain  of  fine  and 
excommunication,  to  assemble  the  next  day  in  the  cathedral,  at 
the  reading  of  the  Edict  of  Faith  and  to  take  the  oath  to  obey 
and  favor  the  Holy  Office,  all  of  which  was  performed  with  due 
solemnity.1 

Fiinez  carried  instructions  to  appoint  twenty  familiars  and  no 
more  in  Las  Palmas,  and  such  as  were  found  necessary  in  the  other 
cities  and  islands.  This  was  his  first  care,  and  he  soon  had  a 
formidable  body,  recruited  from  the  old  nobility,  to  support  his 
authority.  Thus  far  the  Inquisition  had  had  no  special  habita- 
tion, not  even  a  prison,  and  those  under  trial  on  the  most  serious 
charges  were  confined  in  their  own  houses  or  in  the  public  gaol, 
where  there  was  no  provision  for  their  segregation.  Funez  de- 
manded a  competent  building,  with  the  necessary  conveniences, 
a  demand  not  easily  complied  with  in  so  small  a  place,  and  he 
finally  was  installed  in  the  episcopal  palace,  then  vacant  through 
the  absence  of  the  bishop.2  This  of  course  could  be  but  tempo- 
rary and  some  other  provision  must  have  been  made,  for  we  are 
told  that,  when  the  Dutch  under  Pieter  Vandervoez,  in  1599,  took 
possession  of  Las  Palmas,  they  burnt  both  the  episcopal  palace 
and  the  building  of  the  Inquisition.  The  former  was  not  rebuilt 
until  thirty  years  later  by  Bishop  Murga  and  the  latter,  as  we 
shall  see,  was  reconstructed  in  due  time  on  a  large  scale  by  the 
tribunal.3 

A  matter  not  easily  understood  is  the  bestowal,  May  25,  1568, 
on  Ftinez,  by  the  dean  and  chapter,  sede  vacante,  of  cognizance  of 


1  Millares,  II,  7-20.  l  Ibidem,  pp.  15,  21-22. 

1  Murga,  Conatituciones  sinodales  del  Obispado  de  la  Gran  Canaria,  fol.  333 
(Madrid,  1634X 


RENEWED  ACTIVITY  147 

superstitions  arid  sorcery,  because  these  crimes  should  not  remain 
unpunished  and  his  powers  as  inquisitor  were  deficient  in  this 
respect.1  These  offences  in  Spain  were  recognized  as  subject  to 
inquisitorial  jurisdiction  when  savoring,  as  they  always  were 
assumed  to  do,  of  heresy  and  pact  with  the  demon;  they  formed 
by  far  the  larger  part  of  the  cases  coming  before  the  Canary 
tribunal  and  the  previous  inquisitors  had  not  hesitated  to  deal 
with  them.  They  formed  however  a  kind  of  debatable  ground, 
claimed  by  both  the  secular  and  spiritual  as  well  as  the  inquisi- 
torial jurisdiction  and  Funez  may  have  taken  advantage  of  the 
impression  produced  by  his  reception  to  obtain  from  the  chapter, 
in  the  absence  of  a  bishop,  a  transfer  of  its  powers. 

Funez  was  zealous  and  energetic  in  restoring  the  tribunal  to 
usefulness  and,  in  about  eighteen  months,  he  had  accumulated 
material  for  an  auto  de  fe,  celebrated  November  5,  1569.  For 
this  he  sent  out  his  proclamation  through  all  the  islands  so  that, 
as  he  boasted  to  the  Suprema,  although  the  Grand  Canary  had 
only  fifteen  hundred  inhabitants,  there  were  fully  three  thousand 
spectators  assembled.  The  new  bishop,  Juan  de  Azolares,  took 
so  warm  an  interest  in  the  affairs  of  the  Inquisition  that  he  voted 
personally  in  all  the  cases,  he  walked  in  the  procession  and  he 
preached  the  sermon.  There  were  twenty-seven  penitents  for 
minor  offences,  involving  fines,  scourging,  galleys  and  other  penal- 
ties, and  there  were  three  effigies  of  Moriscos  relaxed.  One  of 
these  represented  Juan  Felipe,  a  rich  merchant  of  Lanzarote  who, 
on  learning  that  a  warrant  had  been  issued  for  his  arrest,  chartered 
a  vessel  under  pretext  of  going  to  Tenerife,  on  which  he  embarked 
with  his  wife  and  children  and  some  thirty  of  his  compatriots, 
finding  a  safe  refuge  in  Morocco  and  furnishing  material  for 
heightening  the  interest  of  several  more  autos.2 

The  activity  of  Funez  was  not  confined  to  the  Gran  Canaria 
for  he  made  repeated  visitations  to  the  several  islands,  gathering 
in  denunciations  from  all  quarters,  so  that,  between  May  2, 1568, 
and  January  4,  1571,  the  list  of  accused  amounts  to  544  besides 

1  Birch,  I,  159-60.  2  Millares,  II,  23-30. 


148  THE  CANARIES 

a  number  of  collective  entries,  such  as  "bruxas,"  "the  Frenchmen 
who  took  the  caravel  of  the  Espinosas,"  "  renegades,"  "Moriscos 
of  Lanzarote,"  ''fugitive  negroes"  etc.  The  names  of  English- 
men and  of  an  occasional  Fleming  also  begin  to  appear.  Yet  the 
denunciations  consist  largely  of  the  veriest  trifles  of  careless 
speech,  indicating  how  acute  was  the  watchfulness  excited  to 
observe  and  report  whatever  might  seem  to  savor  of  heresy.  There 
was  no  safety  in  lapse  of  time,  for  matters  were  treasured  up  to  be 
brought  out  long  afterwards,  when  there  was  no  possibility  of 
disproving  them.  In  Gomera,  October  23,  1570,  Maria  Machin 
denounced  Catalina  Rodriguez  for  telling  her  of  a  love-charm 
some  thirty  years  before;  in  Garachico,  December  21, 1570,  Marina 
Ferrera  informs  on  Vicente  Martin,  a  cleric  who  had  gone  to  the 
Indies,  who  told  her  more  than  twenty-seven  years  before  of  an 
unnamed  woman  who  had  tried  on  him  a  conjuration  to  stop  nose- 
bleeding.  More  serious  was  the  accusation  brought  in  Laguna, 
January  14, 1571,  by  Barbolagusta,  wife  of  the  Regidor  Francisco 
de  Coronado,  against  the  physician  Reynaldos,  because,  twelve 
or  thirteen  years  before,  when  the  husband  of  a  patient  told  her  to 
seek  the  intercession  of  the  saints,  he  said  that  God  alone  was  to 
be  prayed  to  and  there  was  no  need  of  saints.1 

Complaints  of  Funez  must  have  reached  the  Suprema  for,  after 
a  short  interval,  probably  in  1570,  Doctor  Bravo  de  Zayas  was 
sent  out  as  visitador  or  inspector.  He  seems  to  have  associated 
himself  companionably  with  Funez  as  a  colleague  and,  in  August, 
1571,  he  made  a  visitation  of  the  islands,  bringing  back  an  abun- 
dant store  of  denunciations.  The  two  held  together  an  auto  on 
December  12,  1574,  in  which  there  was  but  one  relaxation — the 
effigy  of  a  fugitive  Morisco.  Four  slaves  were  reconciled,  includ- 
ing a  case  which  is  suggestive — that  of  a  negro  of  whom  it  is 
recorded  that  he  was  tortured  for  an  hour,  when  the  infliction  was 
stopped  because  he  was  so  ignorant  and  stupid.  Pious  zeal  for 
the  salvation  of  these  poor  savages  led  to  their  baptism  after 
capture;  they  could  not  be  intelligent  converts  or  throw  off  their 

1  Birch,  I,  133-53. 


VISITATIONS  149 

native  superstitions,  and  no  one  seemed  able  to  realize  the  grim 
absurdity  of  adding  the  terrors  of  the  Inquisition  to  the  horrors 
of  their  enslaved  existence.  When  a  negro  slave-girl  was  bemoan- 
ing her  condition,  she  was  kindly  consoled  with  the  assurance 
that  baptism  preserved  her  and  her  children  from  hell,  to  which 
she  innocently  replied  that  doing  evil  and  not  lack  of  baptism 
led  to  hell.  This  was  heresy,  for  which  she  was  duly  prosecuted.1 

Under  the  inquisitorial  code  the  attempt  to  escape  from  slavery 
thus  was  apostasy,  punishable  as  such  if  unsuccessful,  and  expiated 
if  successful  by  concremation  in  effigy.  This  is  illustrated  in  an 
auto,  held  by  Zayas  and  Fiinez,  June  24,  1576,  in  which  among 
sixteen  effigies  of  absentees  were  those  of  eight  slaves,  seven 
negroes  and  one  Moor.  They  had  undergone  baptism,  had  been 
bought  by  Dona  Catalina  de  la  Cuevas  and  were  worked  on  her 
sugar  plantation.  They  seized  a  boat  at  Orotava  and  escaped  to 
Morocco,  for  which  they  were  duly  prosecuted  as  apostates  and 
their  effigies  were  delivered  to  the  flames — a  ghastly  mockery 
which  does  not  seem  to  have  produced  the  desired  impression  in 
preventing  other  misguided  beings  from  flying  from  their  sal- 
vation.2 

While  Zayas  thus  cooperated  with  Funez,  he  did  not  neglect 
the  special  mission  entrusted  to  him.  Charges  piled  up  against 
Funez,  which  he  condensed  into  a  series  of  thirty  articles,  embrac- 
ing all  manner  of  misdeeds — favoritism,  injustice,  improper  finan- 
cial transactions,  illicit  trading  with  the  Moors  of  Barbary,  ill- 
treatment  of  prisoners,  lack  of  discipline  in  the  tribunal,  etc. 
Zayas  and  Funez  seem  to  have  returned  to  Spain  towards  the  close 
of  1576,  for  the  latter's  defence  against  the  charges  is  dated  at 
Madrid,  February  12,  1577.  In  this  he  answered  all  the  points 
in  full  detail,  with  citation  of  documents ;  the  people  of  the  islands, 
he  asserts,  are  given  to  perjury  and,  when  offended,  bring  false 
accusations  to  revenge  themselves — a  habit  which,  it  may  be 
hoped,  he  bore  in  mind  when  sitting  as  a  judge.  Doubtless  he  had 
given  them  provocation  enough  to  induce  them  to  exercise  their 

1  Millares,  II,  43-44,  47,  51.  J  Ibidem,  pp.  57-61. 


150  THE  CANARIES 

talents  in  this  line  against  him  and  the  numerous  charges  indi- 
cate a  wide-spread  feeling  of  hostility  towards  the  tribunal.  His 
defence  was  skilfully  drawn  and,  on  its  face,  seems  to  be  sufficient.1 
The  Canary  tribunal  was  thus  placed  upon  the  same  footing 
as  those  of  Spain,  though  perhaps  it  was  subjected  to  a  somewhat 
closer  supervision -by  the  Suprema  than  was  as  yet  exercised  at 
home,  for  we  happen  to  have  a  letter  of  October  11,  1572,  ordering 
that  Antonio  Lorenzo  be  released  from  the  secret  prison  and  be 
given  his  house  as  a  prison.  Perhaps  it  felt  that  assertion  of  its 
authority  was  necessary,  in  view  of  the  delay  and  uncertainty 
of  communication,  for  commercial  intercourse  was  not  frequent; 
as  Funez  says,  about  this  time,  it  was  notorious  that  there  were 
no  vessels  sailing  for  two  or  three  or  even  more  months.2  Be 
this  as  it  may,  there  was  another  visitor  sent  to  the  Canaries  in 
1582,  and  a  third  about  1590.  The  latter  was  Claudio  de  la  Cueva, 
whose  visitation  lasted  until  1597  and  was  useful  in  exposing  the 
iniquities  of  Joseph  de  Armas,  who  had  served  as  fiscal  for  more 
than  twenty  years.  A  quarrel  between  him  and  the  secretary, 
Francisco  Ibanez,  led  to  mutual  accusations  and  the  unveiling 
of  secrets  which  show  how  the  terror  inspired  by  the  Inquisition 
and  the  immunity  of  its  officials  enabled  them  to  abuse  their 
positions.  There  was  a  rich  and  respected  Fleming  named  Jan 
Aventrot,  married  to  a  native  widow,  who  was  accused  by  a  step- 
daughter of  eating  meat  on  Fridays  and  saying  that  meat  left  no 
stain  on  the  soul;  also  of  eating  meat  in  Lent  and  speaking 
Flemish.  Aventrot  was  secretly  a  Protestant,  which  could  read- 
ily have  been  developed  by  the  ordinary  inquisitorial  methods, 
but  he  escaped  with  a  reprimand  and  a  fine  of  200  ducats.3  How 
this  happened  finds  its  explanation  in  the  fact  that,  while  he  was 
in  prison,  Armas  obtained  from  him,  without  payment,  a  bill  of 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Canarias,  Expedientes  de  Visitas,  Leg.  250,  Lib.  m, 
Cuad.  3. 

1  Ibidem,  fol.  10,  13. 

1  Millares,  II,  105-6.     The  subsequent  case  of  Aventrot  and  his  nephew   Jan 
Cote  is  alluded  to  in  my  History  of  the  Inquisition  of  Spain,  I,  300;  II,  348 ;  III,  102. 


ABUSES  151 

exchange  on  Seville.1  He  also  defrauded  the  revenue  by  receiving 
goods  imported  by  an  Englishman  named  John  Gache  (Gatchell  ?) 
and  selling  them  through  his  brother  Baltasar.  Hernan  Peraza, 
alguazil  of  the  tribunal,  complained  that  Armas  would  not  pay 
his  debts  and  so  did  Daniel  Vandama,  a  Flemish  merchant.  A 
harder  case  was  that  of  a  chaplaincy  in  the  Inquisition  founded  by 
Andre's  de  Moron  for  the  benefit  of  Juan  de  Cervantes,  son  of 
Caspar  Fullana,  auditor  of  accounts  in  the  cathedral.  Armas 
induced  Inquisitor  Francisco  Madaleno  to  take  the  chaplaincy 
from  Cervantes  and  give  it  to  him.  When  Claudio  de  la  Cueva 
came,  Fullana  complained  to  him  and  he  ordered  the  chaplaincy 
restored  and  the  income  accrued  during  four  years,  amounting 
to  190  doblas,  to  be  refunded.  Armas  delayed  payment  for  some 
months  and  then  insisted  on  compromising  it  for  120  doblas,  which 
Fullana  agreed  to,  fearing  that  Armas,  who  was  a  canon,  would 
induce  the  chapter  to  deprive  him  of  his  auditorship,  but  in  place 
of  getting  money  he  received  orders  on  parties  at  a  distance.  In 
stating  this  under  examination  by  la  Cueva,  May  4,  1596,  Fullana 
begged  him  not  to  insist  on  the  restitution  of  the  remaining  70 
doblas,  for  Armas  was  a  dangerous  man.2 

He  proved  so  to  the  convent  of  la  Concepcion,  founded  by 
Dona  Isabel  de  Garfias,  a  Cistercian  nun,  whom  Cardinal  Rodrigo 
de  Castro,  Archbishop  of  Seville,  had  sent  to  Las  Palmas  for  the 
purpose.  Armas  persuaded  the  bishop,  Fernando  de  Figueroa,  to 
appoint  him  as  visitor  of  the  convent  and  used  his  authority  to 
cultivate  a  suspicious  intimacy  with  some  of  the  younger  inmates, 
to  the  destruction  of  discipline  and  rules  of  the  Order.  When 
the  abbess  endeavored  to  enforce  them,  he  deposed  her  and  re- 
placed her  with  Francisca  Ramirez,  a  Dominican,  who  had  accom- 
panied her  from  Spain,  and  who  was  of  near  kin  to  Dona  Laura 
Ramirez,  his  mistress,  by  whom  he  was  said  to  have  a  child. 
The  abbess  appealed  to  the  archbishop,  who  addressed,  December 
19, 1595,  a  forcible  letter  to  the  bishop,  recapitulating  the  misdeeds 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Canarias,  Exp.  de  Visitas,  Leg.  250,  Lib.  i,  fol.  844, 
849,  872. 
1  Ibidem,  fol.  406,  407,  411,  417-22. 


152  THE  CANARIES 

of  Armas  and  ordering  him  to  investigate  and  apply  the  appro- 
priate remedies,  but  to  no  purpose,  and  the  abbess  turned  to  la 
Cueva,  February  28,  1596,  with  an  earnest  memorial,  imploring 
his  interposition.  Armas,  she  said,  desired  her  death,  for  when 
she  was  sick  he  would  not  allow  the  physician  to  visit  her,  so  that 
she  nearly  died.1  A  more  prominent  ecclesiastic  who  experienced 
the  risk  of  provoking  him  was  the  prior  of  the  cathedral,  Doctor 
Luis  Ruiz  de  Salazar,  who  was  also  a  consultor  of  the  tribunal. 
They  had  a  quarrel  in  the  chapter;  Salazar  called  him  the  son  of  a 
clockmaker  and,  when  Armas  gave  him  the  lie,  Salazar  seized  his 
cap  and  beat  him  with  it.  Inquisitor  Madaleno  promptly  threw 
Salazar  into  prison  and  prosecuted  him,  but,  as  the  affair  con- 
cerned a  church  dignitary,  he  was  obliged  to  submit  the  papers  to 
the  Suprema  for  the  sentence.  With  unexpected  moderation 
the  latter  replied,  April  2,  1591  that,  as  the  affair  took  place  in 
the  chapter  and  in  the  capacity  of  canons,  the  tribunal  must 
abandon  the  case  and  allow  it  to  be  decided  by  whatever  judges  had 
jurisdiction — but  it  did  not  prescribe  any  satisfaction  to  Salazar 
for  the  infamy  inflicted  by  his  imprisonment.2 

Meanwhile  the  tribunal  had  been  actively  performing  such 
duties  as  came  in  its  way,  strengthened  by  the  addition  of  another 
inquisitor,  for,  in  1581,  we  find  Funez  replaced  with  Diego  Osorio 
de  Seijas  and  Juan  Lorenzo,  who  celebrated  a  public  auto  on 
March  12th  of  that  year.  It  will  be  remembered  that,  in  the  auto 
of  1569,  there  appeared  the  effigy  of  Juan  Felipe,  who  had  escaped 
from  Lanzarote,  carrying  with  him  some  thirty  other  fugitives. 
The  tribunal  had  not  forgotten  them  and  now,  after  duly  trying 
them  it  burnt  their  effigies,  to  the  number  of  thirty-one,  including 
Felipe's  wife  and  sister  and  three  children,  fifteen  slaves,  mostly 
negroes  and  a  miscellaneous  group  of  others.  In  addition  there 
were  fifteen  reconciled  penitents,  with  the  usual  penalties.3 

Six  years  elapsed  before  there  was  another  auto,  celebrated 


1  Archive  de  Simancae,  Canarias,  Exp.  de  Visitas,  Leg.  250,  Lib.  i,  fol.  568, 
1115-19. 
1  Birch,  I,  297-300.  8  Millares,  II,  72-4, 


PERSECUTION  153 

July  22,  1587,  in  which  there  were  burnt  three  effigies  of  a  rem- 
nant of  the  Lanzarote  fugitives.  There  was  also  the  more  impres- 
sive relaxation  of  a  living  man — the  first  since  that  of  the  Juda- 
izers  in  1526.  This  was  an  Englishman  named  George  Caspar 
who,  in  the  royal  prison  of  Tenerife,  had  been  seen  praying  with 
his  back  to  a  crucifix  and,  on  being  questioned,  had  said  that 
prayer  was  to  be  addressed  to  God  and  not  to  images.  He  was 
transferred  to  the  tribunal,  where  he  freely  confessed  to  having 
been  brought  up  as  a  Protestant.  Torture  did  not  shake  his  faith 
and  he  was  condemned,  a  confessor  as  usual  being  sent  to  his  cell 
the  night  before  the  auto  to  effect  his  conversion.  He  asked  to  be 
alone  for  awhile  and  the  confessor,  on  his  return,  found  him  lying 
on  the  floor,  having  thrust  into  his  stomach  a  knife  which  he 
had  picked  up  in  the  prison  and  concealed  for  the  purpose.  The 
official  account  piously  tells  us  that  it  pleased  God  that  the  wound 
was  not  immediately  mortal  and  that  he  survived  until  evening, 
so  that  the  sentence  could  be  executed ;  the  dying  man  was  carted 
to  the  quemadero  and  ended  his  misery  in  the  flames.  Another 
Englishman  was  Edward  Francis,  who  had  been  found  wounded 
and  abandoned  on  the  shore  of  Tenerife.  He  saved  his  life,  while 
under  torture,  by  professing  himself  a  fervent  Catholic,  who  had 
been  obliged  to  dissemble  his  religion,  a  fault  which  he  expiated 
with  two  hundred  lashes  and  six  years  of  galley  service.  Still 
another  Englishman  was  John  Reman  (Raymond  ?)  a  sailor  of  the 
ship  Falcon;  he  had  asked  for  penance  and,  as  there  was  nothing 
on  which  to  support  him  in  the  prison,  he  was  transferred  to  the 
public  gaol.  The  governor  released  him  and,  in  wandering  around 
he  fell  into  conversation  with  some  women,  in  which  he  expressed 
Protestant  opinions.  A  second  trial  ensued  in  which,  under 
torture,  he  professed  contrition  and  begged  for  mercy,  which  he 
obtained  in  the  disguise  of  two  hundred  lashes  and  ten  years  of 
galleys.  In  addition  there  were  the  crew  of  the  bark  Prima  Rosa, 
twelve  in  number,  all  English  but  one  Fleming.  Cne  of  them, 
John  Smith,  had  died  in  prison,  and  was  reconciled  in  effigy;  the 
rest,  with  or  without  torture,  had  professed  conversion  and  were 


154  THE  CANARIES 

sent  to  the  galleys,  some  of  them  with  a  hundred  lashes  in  addi- 
tion. Besides  these,  this  notable  auto  presented  twenty-two 
penitents,  penanced  or  reconciled,  for  the  ordinary  offences  and 
with  the  usual  penalties.1 

Another  auto  was  celebrated  December  21,  1597,  with  a  large 
number  of  penitents,  but  no  relaxations  either  in  person  or  in 
effigy.  It  was  the  last  of  these  solemnities  held  in  public,  for  the 
next  one,  December  20, 1608,  was  an  auto  particular,  in  the  cathe- 
dral, when  three  effigies  were  relaxed.2  In  fact,  while  the  Inqui- 
sition in  Spain  was  consolidating  its  power  and  threatening  to 
dominate  the  monarchy,  in  the  Canaries  there  seems  to  have  been 
an  unconscious  combination  of  opposing  forces  which  crippled  its 
energies  and  gradually  rendered  it  inert.  Yet  during  the  early 
years  of  the  seventeenth  century  it  had  vigor  enough  to  burn 
two  unfortunates  alive.  Gaspar  Nicholas  Claysen  (Claessens?)  a 
Hollander,  had  been  condemned  to  a  year  of  prison,  in  the  auto 
of  1597,  when  he  must  have  professed  conversion.  He  seems  to 
have  imagined  that  he  would  escape  recognition  and,  in  1611,  he 
tempted  his  fate  again  and  sought  the  Canaries  as  the  captain  of 
a  merchant  vessel.  He  was  arrested  April  19th  and  tried  again. 
In  spite  of  torture  he  maintained  his  faith  to  the  last  and,  on 
January  27,  1612,  he  was  sentenced  to  relaxation,  as  an  impeni- 
tent, by  the  inquisitors  Juan  Francisco  de  Monroy  and  Pedro 
Espino  de  Brito.  Then  a  delay  of  two  years  occurred,  possibly 
occupied  with  efforts  for  his  salvation,  and  it  was  not  until  Feb- 
ruary 22,  1614,  that  the  governor,  Francisco  de  la  Rua,  was  sum- 
moned to  hear  his  sentence  and  receive  him  for  execution.  There 
was  a  Dutch  ship  in  the  harbor  and  many  of  his  compatriots  in 
the  town,  so  that  his  rescue  seems  to  have  been  feared,  for  such  is 
the  reason  given  for  loading  him  with  chains  and  guarding  him 
with  four  soldiers  carrying  arquebuses  with  lighted  matches.  At 
the  appointed  hour  he  was  paraded  through  the  streets,  under 
a  guard  of  soldiers,  to  the  plaza  de  Santo  Domingo,  where  he  was 


Millares,  II,  80-94,  *  Ibidem,  III,  9-10. 


RELAXATIONS  155 

duly  burnt  alive.  The  next  year,  on  June  2, 1615,  Tobias  Lorenzo, 
a  Hollander  settled  in  Garachico  (Tenerife),  who  had  been  arrested 
in  1611,  was  burnt  as  a  relapsed  Protestant.1 

This  was  the  last  relaxation  in  person,  making,  according  to 
Millares,  a  total  of  only  eleven  since  the  foundation  of  the  tribunal, 
but,  as  he  omits  the  earliest  one,  Juan  de  Xeres,  the  count  amounts 
to  twelve.2  After  this  a  long  interval  occurs  before  there  was  even 
an  effigy  burnt.  Duarte  Henriquez  Alvarez  was  a  Portuguese 
New  Christian,  who  was  a  collector  of  the  royal  revenues  and  a 
rich  merchant  in  Tenerife.  In  his  frequent  voyages  to  Europe 
he  fell  in  love  with  the  daughter  of  an  Amsterdam  correspondent 
and  resolved  to  marry  her  and  return  to  the  faith  of  his  ancestors. 
He  remitted  to  Holland  as  much  money  as  he  could  without  exci- 
ting suspicion,  he  abandoned  to  the  Inquisition  the  rest  of  his  con- 
siderable property  and  departed,  never  to  return.  He  was  duly 
prosecuted  in  absentia  and  condemned  to  relaxation  in  effigy. 
Permission  to  execute  the  sentence  in  an  auto  particular  was 
asked  of  the  Suprema  and  its  assent  was  received,  May  29,  1659. 
No  time  was  lost;  on  June  1st  the  auto  was  held  in  the  cathedral; 
the  effigy  was  delivered  to  the  corregidor  and  was  solemnly  burnt 
in  the  quemadero,  being  the  last  execution  in  the  Canaries.3  From 
this  time  to  the  end  of  the  century  the  work  of  the  tribunal  was 
almost  nothing,  the  records  'of  the  prison  showing  that  there  were 
rarely  more  than  one  or  two  prisoners.4 

Before  following  the  history  of  the  tribunal  to  its  decadence  and 
extinction,  we  may  pause  to  consider  its  condition  and  the  various 
directions  in  which  its  activity  was  developed. 


1  Millares,  III,  12-24. 

2  Ibidem,  163-4.     The  figures  of  Millares  are  drawn  from  the  official  list  of 
Quemados.     In  1526  there  are  8;  in  1587,  1 ;  in  1614,  1 ;  in  1615,  1. 

3  Millares,  III,  26-31.     The  total  relaxations  in  effigy  amount  to  107,  as  follows 
(Ibidem,  III,  164-8): 

1  in    1513  17    in    1557  16    in    1576  23    in    1591 
7     "     1530              3     "     1569            30     "     1581  3     "     1608 

2  "    1534  1     "    1574  3     "    1587  1     "    1659, 

4  Birch,  II,  695. 


166  THE  CANARIES 

Its  financial  resources  presumably  were  limited.  During  the 
earlier  term  of  its  career,  when  it  had  no  buildings  of  its  own  and 
no  prison  to  maintain,  when  its  officials  for  the  most  part  were 
drawn  from  the  chapter  and  other  beneficed  incumbents,  an  occa- 
sional confiscation  and  levying  of  fines  probably  met  the  moderate 
necessary  expenses.  In  1563  it  had  the  benefit  of  a  suppressed 
prebend  and  when,  in  1568,  Funez  was  sent  to  organize  it,  the 
energy  of  his  administration  doubtless  supplied  the  funds  neces- 
sary for  the  establishment  which  he  founded.  Imposing  fines, 
however,  probably  was  easier  than  collecting  them,  for  when, 
in  1570,  he  was  about  to  depart  on  a  visitation  of  the  islands 
he  impressed  upon  the  fiscal,  Juan  de  Cervantes,  that  there  were 
many  persons  who  owed  the  fines  to  which  they  had  been  con- 
demned and  he  was  especially  empowered  to  use  all  the  rigor  of  law 
in  compelling  payment.1  This  seems  to  have  been  the  only  source 
thus  far  of  funds,  for  when  one  of  the  charges  against  Funez,  in 
the  visitation,  was  that  he  kept  no  book  for  recording  confisca- 
tions, his  reply,  in  1577,  was  that  there  had  been  none  since  that 
of  the  Felipes  (in  1569)  and  this  was  so  involved  that  he  waited 
till  he  could  visit  Lanzarote  and  straighten  it  out.2 

A  more  promising  field,  however,  as  we  shall  see,  was  now 
developing  in  the  prosecution  of  heretic  merchants  and  shipmast- 
ers who  were  seeking  the  trade  of  the  Canaries,  when  a  latitudi- 
narian  construction  of  the  law  permitted  the  seizure  of  vessels  and 
cargoes,  on  which  the  grip  of  the  Inquisition  was  not  easily  relaxed. 
Either  from  this  or  some  other  source  the  tribunal  was  emerging 
from  its  poverty,  for  a  stray  document  shows  us  that,  in  1602,  it 
was  investing  5000  ducats  in  a  ground-rent,  from  which  it  was 
still  receiving  the  income  in  1755.3  We  also  catch  a  glimpse  of 
its  affairs  in  1654,  when  the  Seville  Contratacion  sent  its  fiscal 
to  the  Canaries  to  put  a  stop  to  the  exportation  of  wine  to  the 
Indies,  the  commerce  of  which  was  confined  to  Seville.  On  June 
15th  the  tribunal  addressed  to  Philip  IV  a  memorial,  arguing  that 


1  Birch,  I,  383-4. 

*  Archive  de  Simancas,  Canarias,  Visitas,  Leg.  250,  Lib.  in,  Cuad.  3,  fol.  20. 

1  Birch,  II,  1007 


FINANCES  157 

to  cut  off  this  trade  would  be  the  total  destruction  of  the  islands, 
which  now  pay  the  king  60,000  ducats  a  year  over  the  expenses  of 
the  garrison  and  judiciary,  for  the  English  took  only  the  malm- 
sey of  Tenerife  and  the  rest  of  the  vintage,  amounting  to  16,000 
pipes  per  annum,  went  to  the  Indies.  The  bishopric,  now  worth 
30,000,  would  not  be  worth  10,000;  as  for  the  Inquisition,  it  held 
ground-rents  on  the  vineyards  paying  22,232  reales  and  28  mara- 
vedis,  which  it  would  lose,  and,  as  its  only  other  source,  the  pre- 
bend, was  worth  only  300  ducats  a  year,  its  support  would  fall  on 
the  king.1  The  only  relief  obtained  from  the  king  was  permission 
to  ship  1000  tuns  a  year  to  various  American  ports.  Whether 
the  tribunal  suffered  or  not  we  have  no  means  of  knowing,  but  in 
1660  we  find  it  gathering  in  the  estate  of  Duarte  Henriquez, 
burnt  in  effigy  in  1658,  and  applying  1942  reales  from  it  to  the 
renewal  of  212  sanbenitos,  hung  in  the  churches,  which  had 
become  worm-eaten  and  indistinct  with  age.2 

This  does  not  look  as  if  the  tribunal  were  oppressed  with  poverty; 
in  fact  it  must  have  enjoyed  abundant  means  for  about  this  time 
it  completed  what  is  described  as  an  imposing  palace  for  its  habi- 
tation. This  had  a  spacious  patio,  covered  with  an  awning  in 
hot  weather,  which  led  into  a  handsome  garden,  opening  upon  a 
street  in  the  rear.  To  these  the  public  was  freely  admitted  and 
they  formed  a  thoroughfare  from  one  street  to  another,  the  object 
of  which  was  to  enable  witnesses  and  informers  to  come  without 
attracting  attention.  In  the  building  were  lodged  the  senior 
inquisitor,  the  gaoler  and  the  subordinate  officials,  the  prison  and 
the  torture-chamber  being  in  the  rear.3  Later  financial  data  are 


1  Millares,  III,  153-7;  IV,  19-20. 

The  exportation  of  wine  from  the  Canaries  to  the  Indies  was  an  old  subject  of 
complaint  in  the  home  country.  In  1573  the  Cortes  represented  that  its  profits 
had  caused  the  abandonment  of  sugar  culture,  which  had  formerly  supplied  the 
Spanish  sugar  market,  greatly  enhancing  its  price  and  deteriorating  its  quality, 
while  at  the  same  time  the  nourishing  wine-trade  was  being  ruined.  In  reply 
to  this  Philip  II  only  promised  to  look  into  the  matter  and  evidently  nothing 
was  done  at  the  time. — Cortes  de  Madrid  del  afio  de  setenta  y  tres,  Peticion  76 
(Alcala,  1575). 

2  Millares,  III,  85.  3  Ibidem,  93-5. 


158  THE  CANARIES 

missing,  but  the  tribunal  probably  managed  to  meet  its  expenses 
to  the  end,  with  no  greater  difficulty  than  those  of  the  Peninsula. 
From  first  to  last  it  was  not  burdened  with  a  punitive  prison  or 
casa  de  la  misericordia,  and  its  sentences  to  confinement  are 
always  to  convents  or  to  the  houses  of  the  culprits  or  to  hold  the 
city  as  a  prison.  The  detentive  or  secret  prison  was  economically 
administered,  the  ration,  as  we  learn  in  1577,  being  only  24  mara- 
vedis  a  day.  The  visitor,  Bravo  y  Zayas,  was  assailed  with  many 
complaints  by  the  inmates  of  insufficient  food,  which  they  ascribed 
to  the  knavery  of  the  officials,  but  Funez  explained  it  by  saying 
that,  while  in  the  Canaries  there  were  usually  one  or  two  months 
of  scarcity  in  a  year,  there  had  been  a  famine  lasting  through 
1571,  1572  and  1573,  when  the  price  of  bread  went  up  to  a  cuarto 
of  six  maravedis  for  two  or  three  ounces  and  the  people  were 
reduced  to  eating  chestnuts;  meat  was  correspondingly  scarce 
and  the  supply  of  fish  was  very  uncertain.  Rich  and  poor  suf- 
fered alike  and,  as  the  prisoners'  allowance  was  in  money,  their 
food  was  unavoidably  diminished.1 

Judaizing  New  Christians,  who  furnished,  in  the  Peninsula,  so 
abundant  a  source  of  exploitation,  formed  a  comparatively  insig- 
nificant feature  in  the  activity  of  the  Canary  tribunal.  At  first 
there  was  better  promise,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  statistics  of  the 
earlier  autos,  but  these  energetic  proceedings  seem  either  to  have 
driven  them  away  or  to  have  thoroughly  converted  them  and,  in 
the  subsequent  period,  the  cases  of  Judaism  are  singularly  few,  in 
so  far  as  we  can  learn  from  existing  documents.  In  1635  there  is 
a  denunciation  of  a  Dutchman  named  Rojel,  who  had  been  in 
Tenerife  and  who  subsequently  was  seen  in  Holland,  dressed  and 
living  as  a  Jew.  In  1636,  a  man  named  Mardocheo,  aged  80, 
resident  of  La  Laguna  in  Tenerife,  was  accused  of  talking  Judaism 
by  a  man  who  had  been  a  fellow-prisoner  with  him  in  the  public 
gaol.  In  1638  the  Licenciado  Diego  de  Arteaga  was  suspected 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Canarias,  Visitas,  Leg.  250,  Lib.  in,  Cuad.  3,  fol.  2, 
8,  10. 


JUDAIZEES  159 

of  being  de  casta  de  Judio,  in  consequence  of  irregular  conduct  in  a 
procession.  In  1653,  Francisco  Vicente,  a  West  Indian,  who  had 
accompanied  his  master  Diego  Rodrigo  Arias  from  Havana  to 
London  and  thence  to  Tenerife,  denounced  him  for  taking  a 
crucifix  every  night  from  his  chest  and  flogging  it  for  half  an  hour. 
In  1659  we  have  seen  the  relaxation  in  effigy  of  Duarte  Henriquez 
Alvarez.  In  1660  Fray  Matias  Pinto  accused  Antonio  Ferndndez 
Carvajal  of  saying  that  he  was  a  Jew  since  Protector  Cromwell 
had  broken  peace  with  Spain.  In  1662  Gaspar  Pereyra,  alias  de 
Vitoria,  was  convicted  of  Judaism  and  sent  to  Seville  to  serve  out 
his  term  of  imprisonment.  His  grandmother  had  been  burnt  and 
his  business  as  a  merchant  had  carried  him  to  Brazil,  Angola, 
Lisbon,  Madrid,  Antwerp,  Amsterdam,  Middelburg  and  many 
other  places,  so  that  he  had  a  comprehensive  acquaintance  with 
the  communities  of  Jewish  refugees  everywhere,  and  the  care  with 
which  the  minute  evidence  that  he  gave  concerning  them  was 
collected  and  ratified,  although  they  were  all  out  of  reach,  shows 
that  the  paucity  of  cases  in  the  records  is  not  the  result  of  any 
lack  of  desire  to  persecute.  It  was  natural  however  that  the 
inquisitors  should  enquire  about  Geronimo  Gomez  Pesoa,  a  rich 
Lisbon  merchant  who  disappeared  just  in  time  to  avoid  arrest  and, 
as  an  English  vessel  sailed  that  night  without  a  licence,  he  was 
supposed  to  have  escaped  in  it — a  supposition  fortified  by  learning 
that  he  had  joined  the  colony  of  Conversos  in  Rouen  and  had 
thence  gone  to  Amsterdam.1  Doubtless  there  were  more  cases 
than  these,  but  the  records  available  do  not  furnish  them. 

During  the  sixteenth  century  baptized  Moorish  and  negro 
slaves  furnished  a  certain  amount  of  business,  especially  when 
they  escaped  and  added  to  the  impressiveness  of  the  autos  with 
their  effigies,  but  subsequently  we  hear  little  of  them.  When 
prosecuted  in  person  it  would  seem  that  the  owner  was  obliged 
to  pay  for  their  maintenance,  for  a  warrant  of  arrest,  in  1575,  of 
Pedro  Morisco  manco,  slave  of  Pedro  d'Escalona,  requires  eight 

1  Birch,  II,  534-6,  547,  548,  580,  626,  634,  646-61. 


160  THE  CANARIES 

ducats  to  be  brought  with  him,  to  be  furnished  by  his  masters 
There  is  one  case  of  a  free  Morisco  which  is  not  easy  to  under- 
stand. About  1590,  Sancho  de  Herrera  Leon,  with  his  wife  and 
children,  was  carried  off  in  a  Moorish  raid.  After  a  short  time  he 
returned  and,  although  he  asserted  that  he  had  come  back  to 
preserve  his  faith,  he  was  made  to  abjure  de  levi,  was  fined  in  forty 
doblas  and  was  exiled  perpetually  from  Lanzarote  and  Fuerte- 
ventura,  under  pain  of  scourging  and  galleys.2  In  the  seventeenth 
century  we  hear  little  of  such  cases,  but  in  1619  there  occurs  one 
which  throws  some  light  on  the  fate  of  the  Moriscos  expelled  from 
Spain  in  1610.  Juan  de  Soto,  born  in  Valladolid  and  brought  up 
as  a  Christian,  was  seven  years  old  at  the  time  of  the  expulsion. 
The  family  passed  into  France;  at  Toulouse  his  parents  and 
brothers  died,  but  a  kinsman  took  charge  of  him  and  carried  him 
to  Barbary,  where  he  was  circumcised  and  made  to  utter  certain 
words  in  Arabic.  For  seven  years  he  served  various  masters, 
who  carried  him  twice  to  Constantinople,  Alexandria  and  other 
places.  In  1618  a  fleet  sailed  from  Algiers  to  the  Canaries,  in 
which  he  served  a  Turkish  captain  named  Hamet.  Sent  ashore 
on  Lanzarote  with  a  foraging  party  and  attacked  by  the  natives, 
three  were  killed  and  he  was  wounded  and  captured.  The  Inqui- 
sition claimed  him,  which  was  probably  fortunate  for  him,  for, 
as  a  renegade  he  escaped  with  reconciliation  and  four  years 
of  sanbenito  and  reclusion  in  a  convent.3 

Renegades,  in  fact,  were  quite  numerous,  and  the  facility  is 
noteworthy  with  which  Christians  when  captured  abandoned  their 
faith.  The  tribunal  kept  a  close  watch  on  them  and  all  who  es- 
caped from  Barbary  were  closely  questioned  as  to  fellow-prisoners 
who  had  renegaded,  when  these  could  be  prosecuted  in  absentia, 
or  record  be  kept  to  confront  them  in  case  of  their  return.4 

The  vast  number  of  denunciations  which  kept  pouring  in  upon 


1  Birch,  I,  207.  2  Millares,  II,  102. 

1  Birch,  I,  416-20. 

4  Ibidem,  II,  726-8,  735,  750-72,  813,  832. 


TRIVIAL  CASES  161 

the  tribunal  shows  how  sedulously  the  population  was  trained  as 
spies  and  informers  upon  their  neighbors.  Many  of  the  alleged 
offences  were  of  the  most  trivial  character,  yet  they  have  their 
interest  as  an  index  of  the  hypersensitiveness  of  orthodoxy  with 
which  the  Spanish  mind  was  imbued.  Among  the  cases  which 
Doctor  Bravo  y  Zayas  brought  home  with  him  for  trial,  from  his 
visitation  of  the  islands  in  1571,  was  that  of  a  man  who,  while 
dressing  himself,  was  annoyed  by  the  glare  of  the  sun  and  pettishly 
exclaimed  "  Devil  take  the  sun,"  which  was  gravely  qualified  as 
blasphemy.  Another  who,  in  a  procession,  had  aided  in  carrying 
the  frame  on  which  was  seated  an  image  of  the  Virgin,  remarked 
that  it  was  a  load  for  a  camel,  which  was  decided  to  be  ill-sounding 
and  offensive  to  pious  ears.  Even  absence  of  intention  did  not 
excuse.  In  1591,  Caspar  L6pez  of  Tenerife,  when  on  guard  one 
night,  went  through  the  exercise  of  arms  with  his  partizan,  in  the 
course  of  which  he  happened  to  strike  a  wooden  cross  that  was 
behind  him,  and  for  this  he  was  sentenced  to  the  indelible  disgrace 
of  appearing  in  an  auto,  followed  by  vergiienza — parading  on  an 
ass  through  the  streets,  naked  from  the  waist  up,  while  the  town- 
crier  proclaimed  his  misdeed.1  This  hyperaesthesia  did  not  dimin- 
ish with  time.  In  1665  the  tribunal  entertained  and  investigated 
an  accusation  that  a  certain  person  when  praying  allowed  his 
rosary  to  hang  down  his  back,  which  was  regarded  as  irreverence.2 
How  readily  such  a  system  could  be  abused  to  gratify  malev- 
olence is  indicated  in  the  case  of  the  Dominican  Fray  Alonso  de 
las  Roelas.  In  March,  1568,  he  made  an  utterance  about  purga- 
tory which  excited  remark,  and  some  of  his  brother  f railes  discussed 
it  with  him,  when  Fray  Bias  Merino,  a  prominent  member  of  the 
Order,  said  that  Roelas  was  simple  and  did  not  know  what  he  said 
and  that  it  was  not  for  them  to  denounce  him.  Some  years  later, 
however,  Bias  Merino,  in  the  hope  of  being  made  Provincial,  was 
engaged  in  a  sort  of  plot  to  get  the  Canaries  separated  from  the 
Province  of  Andalusia  and  erected  into  a  province  of  the  Order. 
The  Dominican  authorities  heard  of  this  and  Roelas  was  com- 


1  Millares,  II,  47-54,  112.  2  Birch,  II,  682. 

11 


162  THE  CANAEIE8 

missioned  to  seize  all  the  papers  connected  with  it  and  to  notify 
Merino  to  abandon  the  project.  To  revenge  himself  Merino 
hunted  up  all  the  witnesses  to  Roela's  utterance  and  persuaded 
them  to  denounce  him  in  1572.  Bishop  Azolares,  whose  zeal 
for  the  Inquisition  we  have  seen,  said  that  the  matter  was  not 
worth  prosecuting,  because  Roelas  did  not  deny  purgatory,  which 
was  a  matter  of  faith,  while  its  place  and  the  character  of  its 
torment  were  matters  of  debate  with  theologians.  Nevertheless 
Roelas  was  arrested  and  tried,  and,  as  usual  during  trial,  he  was 
recluded  in  the  convent  of  his  Order  in  Las  Palmas.  One  mid- 
night he  came  knocking  at  the  door  of  the  Inquisition;  Funez 
was  awakened  and  sent  him  word  that  it  was  no  time  for  him  to 
call  and  that  he  could  come  the  next  day.  He  did  so  and  stated 
that  his  brethren  so  maltreated  him,  because  he  had  once  served 
as  inspector  of  the  house,  that  he  asked  to  be  placed  in  the  secret 
prisons,  a  request  which  was  granted,  and  he  stayed  there  until 
sentenced.  The  sentence  punished  him  with  reclusion  and  he 
was  delivered  to  the  prior  of  the  convent,  when  they  at  once 
commenced  snarling  and  growling  at  each  other  like  quarrelsome 
dogs.  Funez  rebuked  the  prior,  telling  him  to  avoid  such  public 
scandals  and  that  he  would  send  Roelas  to  the  convent  in  Tenerife 
until  the  Provincial  should  decide  as  to  his  place  of  reclusion. 
Funez  probably  spoke  from  experience  when  he  said  that  among 
frailes  there  was  no  restraint  nor  truth,  but  only  envy.1 

The  Canaries  enjoyed  an  ample  supply  of  beatas  revelanderas, 
but,  as  a  rule,  the  tribunal  did  not  follow  the  example  of  the 
Peninsula  in  molesting  them.  One  of  the  most  renowned  of  these 
was  Catalina  de  San  Mateo,  a  nun  of  the  house  of  Santa  Clara 
in  Las  Palmas,  who  had  ecstasies  and  revelations  and  was  rever- 
enced as  a  saint.  God  spoke  with  her  familiarly  through  the 
medium  of  a  painted  Ecce  Homo,  which  hung  in  her  cell,  giving 
her  counsels  and  spiritual  comfort  and  prophecies.  On  her  death, 
May  26,  1695,  the  body  lay  for  three  days  emitting  the  odor  of 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Canarias,  Visitas,  Leg.  250,  Lib.  in,  Cuad.  3,  fol.  6,  16. 


BE  A  TAS-SOLICITA  TION  163 

sanctity  and  was  viewed  by  a  vast  concourse,  eager  to  touch  it 
with  rosaries  and  other  objects,  and  all  her  clothes  and  effects 
were  treasured  as  relics.  All  this  is  described  in  a  letter  of  July 
5th,  to  the  Suprema,  by  the  inquisitors  Lugo  and  Romero,  who 
express  no  doubts  as  to  her  holiness.  Commencement  was  made 
to  collect  testimony  for  her  canonization,  but  enthusiasm  evapo- 
rated and  the  effort  was  abandoned.  She  was  succeeded  in  popu- 
lar veneration  by  Sor  Petronila  de  San  Esteban,  of  the  convent  of 
San  Bernardo  in  Las  Palmas,  which  she  had  entered  in  1680,  at 
the  age  of  four.  She  was  a  bride  of  God ;  the  child  Jesus  came  to 
nestle  in  her  arms;  the  man  Christ  came  to  soothe  her  with  sweet 
words;  legions  of  angels,  headed  by  David,  came  to  rejoice  her 
with  the  music  of  heaven.  She  had  terrible  conflicts  with  demons, 
whom  she  overcame,  and  a  little  wooden  image  of  St.  John,  with 
which  she  held  discourse,  was  the  medium  through  which  she 
enjoyed  revelations  and  prophecies.  The  Inquisition  took  no 
action  to  interfere  with  her  and  almost  the  only  case  in  which  it 
instituted  proceedings,  in  such  matters,  was  one,  in  1695,  against 
Don  Miguel  de  Araus,  confessor  of  two  beatas  in  La  Laguna,  Fran- 
cisca  Machado  de  San  Jose  and  Margarita  de  Santa  Teresa,  the 
former  of  whom  boasted  of  the  stigmata.1 

In  the  later  period  a  very  considerable  share  of  the  labors  of 
the  tribunal  was  devoted  to  cases  of  "  solicitation" — the  seduction 
of  women  by  their  confessors.  It  was  not  until  1561  that  this 
crime  was  subjected  to  inquisitorial  jurisdiction,  under  the  pretext 
that  it  implied  erroneous  belief  as  to  the  sacrament  of  penitence, 
and  some  time  was  required  to  settle  the  question  of  including  it 
in  the  Edict  of  Faith  calling  for  denunciations.  The  earliest  case 
I  have  met  occurs  in  1574,  when  Maria  Ramos  accused  her  con- 
fessor, Fray  Pedro  Gallego.2  After  this  they  occur  with  increasing 
frequency  and  offenders  appear  to  be  treated  with  even  more 
sympathetic  leniency  than  in  Spain.  There  was  moderate  rigor 
in  the  sentence  of  Fray  Pedro  de  Hinojosa,  denounced  in  1579  by 


Millares,  III,  117-23,  125-37.  »  Birch,  I,  198. 


164  THE  CANARIES 

numerous  maids,  wives  and  widows,  for  he  was  deprived  of  the 
faculty  of  hearing  confessions,  he  received  a  circular  discipline  in 
his  convent  and  he  was  recluded  for  three  years  in  a  convent 
with  the  customary  disabilities.1  Much  less  severity  was  shown, 
in  1584,  to  Manuel  Gomez  Pacheco,  priest  of  Garachico,  accused 
by  a  number  of  women,  for  he  was  only  sentenced  to  abjuration 
de  levi,  deprivation  of  administering  the  sacrament  of  penitence, 
two  months  reclusion  in  a  convent  and  some  spiritual  exercises.2 
The  penalties  varied  with  the  discretion  of  the  tribunal.  About 
1590  Fray  Antonio  Pacheco  Sampayo,  against  whom  there  were 
many  accusers,  was  deprived  of  confessing,  had  three  years  of 
reclusion  and  fifty  lashes  in  his  convent,  while  Andres  de  Ortega, 
parish  priest  of  Telde,  likewise  accused  by  several  women,  was 
deprived  merely  of  confessing  women,  fined  in  twenty  ducats 
and  severely  reprimanded.3 

Cases  grow  more  frequent  with  time  and,  with  their  increasing 
frequency,  the  penalties  seem  to  grow  less.  In  1694  Fray  Domingo 
Mireles  was  accused  by  four  women,  with  details  of  foul  obscenity. 
He  was  sentenced  to  deprivation  of  confession  and  reclusion  for 
four  yearSj  but  was  allowed  to  choose  his  place  of  retreat.  He 
served  out  the  term,  went  to  Spain,  and  returned  with  a  reha- 
bilitation charitably  granted  by  the  inquisitor-general.  In  1698 
Fray  Cipriano  de  Armas  was  prosecuted  on  the  evidence  of  two 
women;  the  case  was  carried  to  the  end  and  remitted  for  decision 
to  the  Suprema,  which  ordered  its  suspension.  In  two  cases  in 
1742  the  sentence  was  merely  deprivation  of  confessing,  six 
months'  reclusion  and  five  years'  exile  from  certain  places.  In 
1747  Fray  Bartolome  Bello  had  not  only  seduced  Maria  Cabral 
Gonzalez,  but  had  strangled  in  his  cell  a  child  born  to  them,  after 
piously  baptizing  it,  but  when  the  case  reached  the  Suprema  it 
was  suspended.  In  1750  Francisco  Rodriguez  del  Castillo  was 
prosecuted  on  very  serious  charges  but  was  only  suspended  for 
two  years  from  confessing  and  given  some  spiritual  exercises.  In 


Millares,  II,  37-9.  »  Birch,  I,  214-17.  '  Millares,  II,  98,  102. 


SOLICITATION  165 

1755  there  were  nine  complainants  against  Fray  Francisco  Garcia 
Encinoso,  who  was  deprived  of  confessing  and  sentenced  to  six 
months'  reclusion,  when  he  was  sent  to  the  convent  of  N.  Senora 
de  Miraflor,  with  instructions  to  the  superior  to  keep  the  matter 
profoundly  secret  and  to  treat  him  well.  In  1769  Fray  Domingo 
Matos  was  sentenced  only  to  six  months'  reclusion  and  the  denial 
of  certain  privileges,  which  was  subsequently  remitted.  The 
sympathy  of  the  tribunal  apparently  was  exhaustless  and  fre- 
quently resulted  in  practical  immunity.  In  1785,  Fray  Joseph 
Estrada,  Franciscan  difinidor,  was  accused  by  several  women 
with  full  details,  but  the  tribunal,  on  December  7, 1793,  suspended 
the  case.  Then,  in  1804,  he  was  again  accused  by  a  nun  in  the 
convent  of  la  Purisima  Concepcion  of  Garachico.  Finally,  after 
twelve  years'  delay,  on  February  28,  1805,  the  tribunal  ordered  its 
commissioner  to  give  him  audiencias  de  cargos,  or  private  exami- 
nations, on  report  of  which  the  case  would  be  voted  on,  bearing 
in  mind  the  advanced  age  of  the  accused  and  the  difficulty  of 
communicating  with  the  Suprema,  in  consequence  of  the  war. 
This  was  the  last  of  the  matter  for,  on  April  9,  1806,  the  com- 
missioner at  Ycod  reported  the  death  of  the  culprit.1  When  so 
serious  an  offence  was  visited  so  lightly,  we  can  scarce  be  sur- 
prised that  its  subjection  to  inquisitorial  jurisdiction  failed  to 
check  it.  There  naturally  was  much  difficulty  in  inducing  women 
to  come  forward  as  accusers,  yet  the  number  of  denunciations  was 
large  and  steady.  Thus,  from  July  26, 1706,  to  February  15,  1708, 
the  total  denunciations  of  all  kinds  to  the  tribunal  was  75;  of 
these  only  22  were  of  men,  out  of  which  7,  or  practically  one- 
third,  were  for  solicitation.2 

The  bulk  of  the  business  of  the  tribunal  consisted  in  trials  for 
sorcery,  under  which  term  were  included  all  the  superstitions, 
more  or  less  innocent,  employed  to  cure  or  to  inflict  disease,  to 
provoke  love  or  hatred,  to  discover  theft  and  to  pry  into  the 


1  Birch,  II,  512-17,  870,  931-5,  939,  973.  2  Ibidem,  890-2, 


166  THE  CANARIES 

future,  for  theological  ingenuity  inferred  pact,  express  or  implicit, 
with  the  demon  in  everything  which  could  be  construed  as  tran- 
scending the  powers  of  nature,  except  the  ministrations  of  the 
priest  or  exorcist.  Such  a  community  as  that  of  the  Canaries, 
in  which  the  primitive  magic  arts  of  the  natives  were  added  to 
those  of  their  conquerors,  and  on  these  were  superimposed  the 
beliefs  of  Moorish  and  negro  slaves,  could  not  fail  to  accumulate 
an  incongruous  mass  of  superstitions  affecting  all  the  acts  of  daily 
life,  and  the  summaries  of  cases  printed  by  Mr.  Birch  afford  to 
the  student  of  folk-lore  an  inexhaustible  treasury  of  curious  de- 
details.  No  matter  what  might  be  the  industry  of  the  tribunal 
in  prosecuting  and  punishing  the  practitioners  of  these  arts,  it 
could  effect  nothing  in  repressing  them,  or  in  disabusing  popular 
credulity,  for  its  very  jurisdiction  was  based  on  the  assumption 
that  the  powers  attributed  to  the  sorcerer  were  real,  and  he  was 
punished  not  as  an  impostor  but  as  an  ally  or  instrument  of  the 
demon. 

It  would  carry  us  too  far  to  attempt  even  a  summary  of  the 
multitudinous  superstitions  embalmed  in  the  records,  but  a  couple 
of  cases  may  be  mentioned  which  illustrate  the  popular  tendency 
to  ascribe  to  sorcery  whatever  excited  wonder,  and  also  the  good 
sense  which  sometimes  intervened  to  protect  the  innocent.  In 
1624,  Diego  de  Santa  Marta  of  Garachico  was  denounced  as  a 
sorcerer  to  the  tribunal  in  consequence  of  his  performance  of  some 
tricks  with  cards.  The  accusation  was  entertained  and  Fray  Juan 
de  Saavedra  was  ordered  to  investigate  and  report.  He  invited 
Diego  to  exhibit  his  skill  and  the  performance  took  place  in  the 
cell  of  the  Provincial,  Fray  Bernardo  de  Herrera,  who  was  a 
consultor  of  the  Inquisition,  with  whom  were  associated  Padre 
Luzena,  regent  of  the  schools,  several  theological  professors  and 
Don  Francisco  Sarmiento,  alguazil  of  the  tribunal.  Diego  was 
not  aware  that  he  was  practically  on  trial  before  this  imposing 
assemblage,  and  he  performed  some  surprising  card  tricks  as  well 
as  sundry  other  juggleries.  Fortunately  for  him  the  spectators 
were  clear-sighted  and  Fray  Saavedra  reported  that  it  was  all  a 


SORCERY  167 

matter  of  sleight  of  hand,  which  could  be  detected  by  careful 
observation.1  More  serious  was  the  denunciation,  in  1803,  of 
any  one  of  four  women  named  (apparently  the  individual  was  not 
identified)  who  had,  twelve  years  before,  administered  to  Marfa 
Salome  some  snuff  which  caused  her  to  bark  like  a  dog.  Luckily 
Doctor  Elchantor,  the  inquisitor-fiscal,  had  a  touch  of  the  ration- 
alism of  the  age.  He  reported  that  the  vomiting  and  extraor- 
dinary movements  alleged  might  have  been  produced  by  natural 
causes;  that  among  timid  and  ignorant  women  there  was  a  habit 
of  attributing  all  disease  to  sorcery;  that  it  could  not  be  said  that 
the  snuff  had  been  prepared  with  diabolic  arts  and  that  there 
were  no  other  suspicions  against  the  parties  accused.  He  there- 
fore advised  that  the  papers  be  simply  filed  away,  and  in  this 
Inquisitor  Borbujo  concurred.2 

Although  the  term  bruja,  or  witch,  occasionally  appears  in  the 
records,  there  would  not  appear  to  be  any  cases  of  specific  witch- 
craft. The  nearest  allusions  to  the  Sabbat  occur  in  1674,  when 
Dona  Isabel  Ybarra  testified  that,  a  year  before,  Dona  Ana  de 
Ascanio  told  her  that  Don  Juan  de  Vargas,  now  dead,  told  her 
that  once,  in  returning  home  about  midnight,  he  encountered  a 
dance  of  women  with  timbrels  and  lighted  candles.  In  the  same 
year  Fray  Pablo  Guillen  deposed  that  at  midnight  he  saw  Guil- 
lerma  Pere  naked;  she  anointed  herself  and  flew  through  the  air 
with  another  woman.  Connected  with  this  was  the  statement  that 
a  son  of  Juan  Hernandez,  at  midnight,  found  in  the  street  Dona 
Ana  Maria,  widow  of  Captain  Juan  de  Molina,  entirely  naked. 
He  took  her  to  her  house,  when  she  gave  him  a  garment  and 
begged  him  to  keep  silence.3 

For  a  comparatively  brief  period  the  most  important  work  of 
the  tribunal  concerned  the  foreign  heretics — mostly  Englishmen 
and  Flemings,  or  rather  Hollanders — who  frequented  the  islands, 
whether  for  peaceful  commerce  or  for  piracy.  As  the  port  of  call 


Birch,  I,  482-4.  2  Ibidem,  II,  992-3.  *  Ibidem,  819,  826, 


168  THE  CANARIES 

in  the  trade  with  America,  the  islands  were  the  favorite  resort  of 
the  sea-rovers  of  all  the  nations  at  enmity  with  Spain,  that  is 
of  nearly  all  Europe,  in  hopes  of  capturing  some  rich  galleon  or  of 
ravaging  some  unprotected  spot.  In  1570,  a  Norman  Huguenot, 
cruising  off  Gomera,  seized  a  vessel  starting  for  Brazil  with  forty 
Jesuit  missionaries ;  he  put  them  all  to  death  and  landed  his  other 
prisoners  at  San  Sebastian,  a  port  of  Gomera,  which  next  year  was 
sacked  by  another  French  corsair.1  To  some  extent,  doubtless, 
the  Inquisition  was  regarded  as  a  safeguard  against  such  marau- 
ders. In  1589,  an  Englishman,  captured  at  Garachico  from  the 
ship  of  Vincent  Pieter  the  Fleming,  was  said  to  have  been  a  pirate 
who  had  pillaged  in  company  with  other  Englishmen,  and  was 
brought  before  the  tribunal,  although  nothing  else  was  alleged 
against  him.  About  the  same  time  certain  French  "pirates," 
taken  on  the  islet  of  Graciosa,  off  Lanzarote,  were  delivered  to 
the  tribunal,  when  they  proved  themselves  to  be  good  Catholics 
by  their  familiarity  with  the  prayers  and  other  observances.2 

Much  more  serious  was  the  interference  of  the  Inquisition  with 
those  who  came  to  trade,  and  it  is  difficult  to  understand  how 
Spain  could  carry  on  any  commerce  with  foreign  nations  under  the 
impediments  which  it  interposed.  The  earliest  case  in  the  records 
is  one  to  which  allusion  has  already  been  made,  that  of  John 
Sanders  who,  in  1565,  came  as  a  sailor  in  a  vessel  from  Plymouth, 
of  which  the  master  was  James  Anthony,  the  cargo  consisting  of 
28  casks  of  sardines,  20  dozen  of  calf-skins  and  a  lot  of  woollen 
goods,  the  property  of  the  master  and  his  brother  Thomas.  On 
arrival  at  Las  Isletas,  as  Sanders  could  speak  and  write  Spanish, 
Anthony  got  him  to  enter  the  goods  as  his  own  and  installed  him 
in  a  shop  to  sell  them.  After  two  or  three  months,  one  day  the 
public  scrivener,  Melchor  de  Solis,  came  and  demanded  three 
reales,  which  Sanders  refused.  While  they  were  talking  he  placed 
his  hand  on  the  wall,  where  there  was  hanging  a  paper  print  of 
Christ,  which  he  had  not  recognized,  as  its  face  was  turned  to 
the  wall  and  it  was  partly  torn.  Passing  his  hand  over  it,  a 

,  II,  152-62.  2  Birch,  I,  347,  350-2, 


FOREIGN  HERETICS  169 

piece  fell  off,  when  Solis  charged  him  with  tearing  an  image  of 
Christ;  he  picked  it  up,  reverently  kissed  it  and  replaced  it.  The 
story  spread  and  caused  scandal ;  in  the  abeyance  of  the  tribunal, 
the  provisor  took  up  the  matter,  arresting  Sanders  March  29th 
and  sequestrating  the  property,  which  consisted  of  2492  reales  in 
money,  3J  casks  of  sardines  and  2-|  dozen  of  calf-skins,  all  of  which 
was  duly  placed  in  the  hands  of  the  secrestador,  and,  in  addition, 
Leonez  Alvarez  testified  that  he  had  bought  and  paid  for  goods  to 
the  amount  of  340  ducats.  Under  examination  Sanders  pro- 
fessed himself  a  Catholic;  he  could  recite  the  Pater  Noster  and 
Credo  and  the  Ave  Maria  without  the  final  clause  imploring  the 
prayers  of  the  Virgin,  which  he  said  he  had  never  been  taught ;  he 
could  cross  himself  but  did  not  know  the  peculiar  Spanish  form; 
he  reverenced  images  of  saints  although  the  Queen  of  England 
had  banished  from  the  churches  all  but  those  of  Christ  and  the 
Virgin,  and  he  had  attended  mass  since  he  came.  Then  James 
Anthony  came  forward  and  claimed  the  property,  confirming  the 
story  of  Sanders,  and  it  was  delivered  to  him,  but  not  until  he 
had  furnished  satisfactory  security  to  abide  the  result.  What 
was  the  outcome  we  have  no  means  of  knowing,  as  the  papers 
were  sent  to  the  tribunal  of  Seville  for  its  action,  but  the  least 
that  could  happen  to  Sanders  and  Anthony  was  interminable 
delay.1 

Trading  with  the  Canaries  evidently  was  a  hazardous  business 
and  the  danger  increased  as  time  went  on,  for  it  sufficed  that  the 
crew  were  heretics  to  justify  their  trial  and  punishment,  with 
the  accompaniment  of  sequestration  and  confiscation.  Thus  on 
April  24,  1593,  a  single  vote  ordered  the  arrest  with  sequestration 
of  the  pilot  and  other  officers,  the  sailors  and  boys  and  passengers 
of  the  ship  named  El  Leon  Colorado  and  of  all  who  came  in  the 
ship  named  San  Lorenzo,  both  now  at  anchor  in  the  port  of  Las 
Isletas.2  The  case  of  the  Leon  Colorado  is  suggestive.  She  was 
an  English  ship  which,  until  1587,  had  been  employed  in  the  Lisbon 
trade  under  a  licence  from  the  Marquis  of  Santa  Cruz,  but  after 


Birch,  II,  1018-26,  3  Ibidem,  I,  303-4,  377, 


170  THE  CANARIES 

his  death  she  seems  to  have  been  transferred  to  Flanders.  On 
this  voyage  she  had  sailed  from  Antwerp,  a  Spanish  port,  under  a 
licence  from  Alexander  of  Parma,  the  nephew  of  Philip  II  and  the 
governor  of  the  Low  Countries.  The  escrivano  or  purser  of  the 
ship,  Franz  Vandenbosch,  while  on  trial,  procured  a  certificate 
from  the  municipal  authorities  of  Antwerp  setting  forth  that  his 
parents  were  good  Catholics  and  so  were  their  children,  and  that 
Franz  had  sailed  for  the  Canaries  with  the  licence  and  passport 
of  the  Duke  of  Parma.  The  only  effect  of  this  was  a  vote  to 
torture  him,  on  learning  which  he  confessed  that  in  Mecklenburg 
he  had  embraced  Calvinism,  and  his  sentence  was  reconciliation 
and  confiscation,  prison  and  sanbenito  for  three  years  and  per- 
petual prohibition  to  visit  heretic  lands  or  to  approach  within  ten 
leagues  of  the  sea,  for  which  reason  he  was  to  be  sent  to  Spain. 
Another  member  of  the  crew  Georg  Van  Hoflaquen  asserted  his 
Catholicism  and  adhered  to  it  through  four  successive  inflictions, 
each  of  three  turns  of  the  cor  deles.  Then  he  was  ordered  to  be 
placed  on  the  burro  or  rack,  when  he  declared  that  he  could  no 
longer  endure  the  agony  and  that  he  was  a  heretic.  He  was 
sentenced  to  reconciliation  and  confiscation,  and  three  years  of 
prison  and  sanbenito,  with  the  corresponding  disabilities.1 

In  these  cases  the  adverse  evidence  is  almost  wholly  derived 
from  other  members  of  the  crews,  who  had  no  hesitation  in  testi- 
fying to  their  comrades'  Protestantism.  There  was  usually  no 
concealment  attempted  but,  when  orthodoxy  was  asserted,  torture 
was  unsparingly  employed.  Conversion  did  not  obtain  much 
alleviation  of  punishment.  Another  of  the  crew  of  the  Leon 
Colorado  was  Jacob  Banqueresme,  a  Hollander,  who  freely  ad- 
mitted his  Calvinism.  He  knew  nothing  of  Catholicism  but  was 
ready  to  embrace  it  if  it  seemed  to  him  good.  Theologians  were 
set  to  work  and,  in  due  time,  he  announced  his  conversion  and  was 
formally  admitted  to  the  Church,  but  he  was  sentenced  to  be  sent 
to  Spain  and  confined  in  a  convent  for  two  years,  in  order  to  be 


1  Birch,  I,  374-9;  II,  1048-9, 


FOREIGN  HERETICS  171 

thoroughly  instmcted,  and  he  was  prohibited  to  go  to  heretic 
lands  or  to  approach  the  sea  within  ten  leagues.^ 

The  result  of  these  labors  was  seen  in  the  auto  of  1597,  in  which 
there  were  seventeen  Englishmen  and  Flemings  reconciled,  with 
imprisonment  ranging  from  two  to  eight  years,  and  twenty-six 
penanced,  with  from  one  to  four  years  of  prison,  the  ships  to 
which  they  belonged  being  La  Rosa,  San  Pedro,  La  Posta,  San 
Lorenzo,  Leon  Colorado,  Margarita  and  Maria  Fortuna.2  There 
were  no  obstinate  heretics  and  no  martyrs.  When  this  active 
proselytism  was  carried  on  for  twenty  years  or  more  with  its  con- 
sequent confiscation  of  ships  and  cargoes,  it  is  easy  to  understand 
the  financial  ease  of  the  tribunal  and  to  conjecture  its  influence  on 
the  commerce  and  prosperity  of  the  islands. 

This  flourishing  industry  was  interfered  with  by  the  treaty  with 
England  ratified  by  James  I  on  August  29/19, 1604,  and  by  Philip 
III  on  June  16,  1605.  It  provided  that  English  subjects  visiting 
or  resident  in  the  Spanish  dominions  were  not  to  be  molested  on 
account  of  their  religion,  so  long  as  they  gave  no  occasion  for  scan- 
dal, and  this  was  extended  to  the  United  Provinces  in  the  twelve 
years'  truce,  concluded  in  1609.3  The  caution  induced  by  the 
treaty,  even  before  its  ratification  by  Spain,  is  exemplified  in  the 
case  of  Edward  Monox,  an  English  captain  and  merchant,  charged 
September  10,  1604,  with  offences  in  the  matter  of  images  and 
with  following  the  doctrines  of  Luther  and  Calvin.  The  consulta 
de  fe,  September  llth,  unanimously  voted  his  arrest  with  seques- 
tration but  that,  before  action,  the  papers  be  sent  to  the  Suprema 
for  its  decision,  in  view  of  the  considerations  of  state  arising  from 
the  peace  with  England,  and  from  the  fact  that  he  was  a  rich 
merchant  who,  since  the  death  of  Queen  Elizabeth,  had  twice 
come  with  highly  commendatory  passports  from  the  Spanish 
ambassador  in  London.4 

While    thus   some  wholesome   restraint  was  imposed  on  the 


1  Millares,  II,  148-50.  2  Ibidem,  141-7. 

5  Coleccion  de  Tratados  de  Paz;  Phelipe  III,  pp.  161-2,  198,  465. 
4  Birch,  II,  1054. 


172  THE  CANARIES 

Inquisition  and  the  vexations  inflicted  on  merchants  and  seamen 
became  much  less  frequent,  they  did  not  wholly  cease,  for  the 
Suprema  construed  the  treaties  arbitrarily  in  such  wise  as  to 
limit  the  privileges  of  foreign  heretics  as  far  as  possible.  How  it 
still  continued  to  throw  obstacles  in  the  way  of  trade  may  be 
seen  in  the  petition  of  Jacob  and  Conrad  de  Brier  and  Pieter 
Nansen,  merchants  of  Tenerife,  presented  May  3,  1611.  The  ship 
Los  Tres  Reyes  arrived  at  Las  Isletas  with  some  goods  for  them; 
for  some  reason,  not  stated,  it  had  been  seized  by  the  tribunal  and 
its  cargo  had  been  sequestrated  and  they  sought  release  of  their 
property.  Their  prayer  was  granted  and,  on  May  25th,  an  order 
was  given  to  deliver  to  their  agent  the  packages  specified  and  their 
letters,  subject  however  to  the  payment  of  the  cost  of  disembark- 
ing the  goods,  the  carriage  to  Las  Palmas,  the  fees  of  the  secres- 
tador  for  keeping  them,  24  reales  to  the  interpreter  of  the  tribunal 
for  his  trouble,  18  ducats  4  reales  for  the  freight  and  10  reales 
average  to  the  ship,  at  the  rate  of  one  real  per  package.1 

When  war  broke  out  with  England,  lasting  from  1624  to  1630, 
of  course  the  treaty  of  1604-5  became  dormant,  but  it  was  not 
until  April  22, 1626,  that  a  royal  proclamation  of  non-intercourse 
with  England  appeared,  confiscating  all  English  goods  imported 
in  contravention  of  it,  and  this  was  followed,  May  29th,  by  a 
carta  acordada  of  the  Suprema  ordering  the  prosecution,  in  the 
regular  way,  of  all  Englishmen  who  had  been  delinquent  as 
regards  the  faith.2  This  led  to  a  discussion  between  the  three 
inquisitors.  Francisco  de  Santalis  presented  a  long  opinion  to  the 
effect  that  in  Tenerife  there  were  very  many  of  them  who,  in  spite 
of  the  war,  remained,  in  place  of  departing  as  enemies.  The 
orders  of  the  Suprema  were  therefore  applicable  to  them;  Catholics 
incurred  the  risk  of  excommunication  in  supplying  them  with 
food  and  were  exposed  to  the  danger  of  infection;  they  were  delin- 
quents in  not  hearing  mass  or  confessing  and  communing,  and  in 
eating  meat  on  fast  days.  This  was  not  only  a  great  scandal,  but 
it  afforded  opportunity  of  flight  and  of  concealing  their  property, 

1  Birch,  I,  414-16.  2  Ibidem,  II,  1069-70. 


FOREIGN  HERETICS  173 

which  was  large.  He  therefore  voted  that  secret  information  be 
taken  as  to  their  delinquencies  and,  when  this  was  sufficient,  that 
they  should  all  be  arrested  and  their  property  be  sequestrated, 
after  which  the  orders  of  the  Suprema  could  be  awaited  as  to 
their  prosecution.  The  other  two  inquisitors,  Alonso  Rincon  and 
Gabriel  Martinez,  referred  to  a  consultation  had  on  September 
2d  with  the  Ordinary,  the  consultors,  and  the  calificadores,  when 
it  was  resolved  that  the  matter  be  referred  to  the  Suprema  and 
no  action  be  taken  till  its  orders  were  received;  the  royal  procla- 
mation had  said  nothing  about  residents;  to  seize  them  and  their 
property  would  be  a  great  hardship;  the  commissioners  at  La 
Laguna,  Orotava  and  Garachico  had  been  instructed  to  be  vigi- 
lant and  no  denunciations  had  been  received.  It  is  creditable 
to  the  tribunal  that  it  resisted  the  temptation  of  seizing  the  large 
amount  of  property  involved,  and  the  English  appear  not  to  have 
been  molested.1 

Yet  the  position  of  the  foreign  merchants  was  exceedingly 
precarious,  as  is  shown  by  the  case  of  John  Tanner,  prior  to  these 
deliberations.  He  was  arrested  and  brought  to  the  prison,  No- 
vember 12, 1624.  On  examination  he  stated  his  age  as  22;  he  was 
a  baptized  Christian,  who  kept  feast-days  and  Sundays,  but  did 
not  hear  mass  or  confess,  for  in  his  country  there  was  no  mass 
or  confession;  he  knew  nothing  of  the  Catholic  faith  and  had  never 
been  instructed  in  it.  When  asked  as  usual  if  he  knew  the  cause 
of  his  arrest  he  said  that  he  did  not,  unless  it  was  because  Juan 
Janez,  the  commissioner  at  Garachico,  had  asked  him  for  some 
linens  and  a  pair  of  wool  stockings  which  he  refused,  when  Janez 
called  him  a  heretic  dog  and  they  came  to  blows,  and  then  he 
was  thrown  into  the  public  gaol.  On  being  told,  as  usual,  to 
search  his  memory,  he  added  that  once  he  went  with  some  other 
Englishmen  to  La  Laguna  to  see  Don  Rodrigo  de  Bohorquez,  then 
governor  of  Tenerife;  he  asked  Bohorquez  to  pay  him  400  pesos 
owing  to  him  and  2800  reales  due  to  Robert  Spencer  for  goods 
taken,  when  Boh6rquez  grew  angry  and  said  that  Henry  Ysan 

1  Birch,  II,  1065-70. 


174  THE  CANARIES 

was  the  cause  of  all  the  English  making  demands  upon  him;  if 
he  had  hanged  him  while  in  his  power  there  would  be  none  of  this 
and  he  was  a  heretic  dog,  for  no  one  could  be  a  Christian  who 
was  not  a  Roman.  Tanner  replied  that  one  could  be  a  Christian 
without  being  a  Roman,  when  Bohorquez  called  for  witnesses  and 
swore  that  he  should  suffer  for  it.  Tanner  was  then  asked  what 
he  meant  by  saying  that  one  could  be  a  Christian  without  being 
a  Roman,  when  he  fell  on  his  knees  and  begged  mercy  if  he  had 
erred.  He  was  a  poor  youth  and  had  a  ship  lying  at  Garachico, 
on  which  he  had  to  pay  demurrage  of  120  reales  a  day,  while  the 
embargo  on  his  property  prevented  his  despatching  her.  At  a 
second  audience  on  November  19th  he  again  begged  mercy  on  his 
knees;  his  credit  was  being  ruined  by  the  demurrage  on  his  ship, 
and  the  loss  fell  on  his  principal.  Then,  on  the  23d,  he  asked  for 
an  audience  in  which  he  represented  that  the  ships  were  loading 
and  preparing  to  sail,  while  his  was  idle;  his  whole  career  was 
being  wrecked ;  be  begged  them  for  the  love  of  God  to  have  mercy 
on  him  and  tell  him  what  he  had  done;  he  had  lived  in  the  religion 
of  his  fathers  and  must  continue  to  do  so,  or  he  could  not  return 
to  England;  he  had  engaged  to  serve  his  master  for  seven  years 
and  his  parents  were  under  bonds  for  him.  The  pleadings  of  the 
poor  wretch  were  fruitless;  the  case  dragged  on  through  the  custo- 
mary formalities  and,  on  February  11,  1625,  the  consul ta  de  fe 
voted  that  he  be  absolved  ad  cautelam  and  be  recluded  for  two 
years  in  a  convent  for  instruction,  at  the  expiration  of  which  he 
must  bring  a  certificate  of  improvement.  In  accordance  with 
this,  on  February  18th,  he  was  placed  in  the  Franciscan  convent, 
his  maintenance  being  paid  for  as  a  pauper.1  Proselytism  after 
this  fashion  can  scarce  have  conduced  to  the  salvation  of  souls, 
however  much  it  may  have  replenished  the  treasury  of  the  Holy 
Office. 

With  the  peace  of  1630  the  provisions  of  1604  were  revived 
but  hardly  a  year  passed  in  which  some  Englishman  was  not 
thrown  in  prison  and  prosecuted  on  one  pretext  or  another,  as 

'  Birch,  II,  1055-63. 


FOREIGN  HERETICS  175 

Roderick  Jones,  in  1640,  for  saying  that  God  alone  is  to  be  prayed 
to,  and  Edward  Bland,  in  1642,  for  having  a  Bible  in  his  house.1 
In  spite  of  this  the  flourishing  wine-trade  of  the  islands  brought 
many  English  and  Hollanders  as  residents,  and  there  was  even 
an  English  company  established  at  Tenerife,  where,  in  1654,  the 
tribunal  reported  that  there  were  more  than  fifteen  hundred 
Protestants  domiciled,  who  were  prevented  from  infecting  the 
people  by  its  incessant  vigilance.  The  captains-general  usually 
sought  to  protect  them,  and  the  influence  of  their  ambassadors  in 
Madrid  was  invoked  on  occasion,  but,  when  one  fell  sick,  the 
Inquisition  sought  to  isolate  him  from  his  family  and  friends 
and  put  him  in  charge  of  theologians  to  convert  him,  giving  rise 
to  unseemly  contests  in  which  it  was  not  always  successful.  To 
remedy  this  the  tribunal,  September  18, 1654,  asked  of  the  Suprema 
power  to  insist  that  when  one  of  the  rich  Protestant  residents  fell 
sick,  his  compatriots  should  be  excluded  and  entrance  should 
alone  be  permitted  to  learned  Catholics  who  might  wean  him 
from  his  errors.2  We  should  probably  do  no  injustice  to  the 
motives  of  the  tribunal  in  assuming  that  this  was  dictated  rather 
by  the  expectation  of  pious  bequests  than  by  zeal  for  death-bed 
conversions. 

Foreigners  sometimes  sought  to  avert  trouble  by  pretending 
Catholicism  and  thus  placed  themselves  in  the  power  of  the  tri- 
bunal, which  was  constantly  on  the  watch  for  them.  In  1654,  for 
instance,  Fray  Luis  de  Betancor  was  summoned  and  interrogated 
as  to  his  knowledge  of  such  cases,  to  which  he  replied  that,  some 
twelve  years  before,  Evan  Pugh,  an  English  surgeon,  had  come 
to  Adeje  to  cure  Dona  Isabel  de  Ponte,  and  sometimes  went  out 
to  hunt  with  her  brother  Juan  Bautista  de  Ponte.  He  remem- 
bered that  one  day,  when  he  had  finished  celebrating  mass,  he 
was  told  that  Pugh  had  stood  at  the  church-door  with  his  hat  in 
his  hand,  and  it  was  currently  said  that  he  confessed  to  Fray 
Juan  de  Medina.  Similarly,  in  1674,  we  find  the  Hollander  Pieter 
Groney  testifying  that  when  he  sailed  from  the  Texel  in  1671  Juan 

1  Birch,  II,  542,  555,  557.  2  Millares,  III,  83-4,  157. 


176  THE  CANARIES 

de  Rada  was  a  fellow-passenger,  who  told  him  he  was  a  Protest- 
ant and  as  such  joined  in  the  services  during  the  voyage,  but,  when 
the  ship  was  visited  on  arrival  he  swore  that  he  was  a  Catholic  and 
had  since  then  acted  exteriorly  as  a  Catholic,  though,  when  they 
lived  together  for  a  couple  of  months,  he  ate  meat  freely  on  fast 
days  and  he  regarded  him  as  a  Protestant  rather  than  as  a  Catho- 
lic.1 What  was  the  outcome  in  these  cases  cannot  be  told,  but  the 
investigations  illustrate  the  careful  watchfulness  of  the  tribunal 
and  the  dangers  incurred  by  residence  within  its  jurisdiction. 
Even  his  official  position  did  not  protect  from  prosecution  Ed- 
mund Smith,  the  British  consul  at  Tenerife,  when  he  was  accused, 
in  1699,  of  maltreating  converts  to  Catholicism  and  of  persuading 
and  threatening  those  inclined  to  it,  even,  it  was  said,  shipping 
them  away  when  other  measures  failed.2 

In  the  18th  century,  while  foreign  vessels  were  closely  watched 
and  a  vigilant  eye  was  kept  on  resident  Protestants,  they  were  no 
longer  molested  with  investigations  and  denunciations.  If,  in 
1728,  Philip  V  ordered  the  expulsion  of  all  foreigners,  it  was  not 
on  religious  grounds,  but  to  put  an  end  to  frauds  on  the  revenue. 
None,  however,  were  expelled,  although  some  professed  conversion 
to  save  themselves  from  annoyance.3  A  similar  impulse  seems  to 
have  impelled  Dr.  James  Brown,  a  physician  of  Tenerife,  who 
wrote,  in  March,  1770,  to  the  tribunal,  from  the  Augustinian 
convent  of  La  Laguna,  in  which  he  had  sought  asylum  from  the 
captain-general,  who  was  seeking  to  seize  him  and  send  him  to 
England.  To  secure  its  protection  he  asserted  his  desire  to  abjure 
his  errors  and  to  be  received  into  the  Catholic  Church,  but  in  this 
he  failed  for,  on  July  14,  he  was  ordered  to  leave  the  islands  within 
forty  days.4 

The  intellectual  activity  of  the  Canaries  was  not  such  as  to  call 
for  much  vigilance  of  censorship,  at  least  during  the  earlier  period. 
The  visitas  de  navios,  or  examination  of  ships  arriving,  for  heretics 


1  Birch,  II,  592,  825-6.  J  Ibidem,  1070. 

•  MiUares,  IV,  19-20.  4  Birch,  II,  948. 


CENSORSHIP  177 

and  heretic  books,  was  performed  after  a  fashion,  but  the  tribunal 
was  inadequately  equipped  for  the  duty.  One  of  the  charges 
against  Inquisitor  Funez,  in  1577,  was  his  sending  the  gaoler  to 
perform  it,  to  which  he  replied  that  he  had  done  so  but  once  and 
that  on  occasions  he  had  sent  the  fiscal  or  the  secretary;  it  was  not 
his  business  and  he  had  no  one  to  whom  to  depute  it.1 

Towards  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth  century  there  was  some 
little  activity  with  regard  to  the  foreign  Protestants,  who  were 
assumed  to  be  subject  to  the  rules  of  the  Index.  The  prosecution 
of  Edward  Bland,  in  1642,  for  possessing  a  Bible,  seems  to  have 
attracted  attention  to  this  and,  on  July  5,  1645,  the  tribunal 
ordered  its  commissioner  at  Orotava  to  take  the  alguazil,  notary 
and  two  familiars  and  visit  the  houses  of  the  English  heretics, 
secretly,  without  disturbance  and  with  much  discretion,  asking 
them  to  exhibit  all  the  books  they  possessed,  examining  all  their 
chests  and  packages,  making  an  inventory  of  all  books  and  their 
authors,  and  making  them  swear  before  the  notary  as  to  their 
having  licences  to  hold  them;  also  whether  they  had  been  examined 
by  the  Inquisition  and,  if  so,  at  what  time  and  by  what  officials. 
If  there  were  works  by  prohibited  authors,  or  such  as  had  not  been 
seen  by  the  Inquisition,  they  were  to  be  deposited  with  a  suitable 
person,  sending  a  report  to  the  tribunal,  with  lists  of  the  books, 
and  awaiting  its  action.  If  portraits  or  busts  of  heresiarchs  were 
found  they  were  to  be  seized  and  deposited  with  the  books. 

Under  these  elaborate  instructions  the  search  was  duly  made 
and  the  reports,  if  truthful,  would  indicate  that  literature  and  art 
were  not  extensively  cultivated  by  the  English  traders.  Nothing 
dangerous  was  found,  though  of  course,  as  regards  English  books, 
the  investigators  had  to  accept  the  word  of  the  owners.  In  one 
house  they  describe,  as  hanging  on  the  walls  of  a  room,  very  ugly 
half-length  portraits  of  a  strange  collection  of  worthies — Homer, 
Apelles,  Philo  Judseus,  Aristotle,  Seneca,  Pliny,  two  of  Gustavus 
Adolphus  and  one  without  a  name.  It  is  perhaps  significant 
that  nowhere  was  there  a  Bible,  a  prayer-book  or  a  work  of  devo- 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Canarias,  Visitas,  Leg.  250,  Lib.  in,  Cuad.  3,  fol.  20. 
12 


178  THE  CANARIES 

tion.  The  houses  of  two  Portuguese  traders  were  similarly  in- 
spected, where  were  found  pictures  of  saints  and  of  damsels  with 
exuberant  charms;  also  of  Barbarossa  and  of  some  other  pirates.1 
Possibly  supervision  of  this  kind  may  have  continued  for,  on 
June  7,  1663,  Richard  Guild  was  summoned  to  the  tribunal  to 
describe  six  English  books  and  four  pamphlets,  found  in  posses- 
sion of  Edward  Baker,  when  among  them  there  proved  to  be 
several  controversial  works  as  to  Presbyterianism  and  the  Inde- 
pendents. So,  in  1670,  Captain  Joseph  Pinero,  a  Portuguese, 
who  was  building  a  ship,  was  denounced  for  the  more  dangerous 
offence  of  having  some  Jewish  books,  but  diligent  search  failed 
to  discover  them.2 

Books,  however,  were  not  the  only  objects  of  censorial  anim- 
adversion. In  1671  some  plates  and  jars  with  figures  of  Christ, 
the  Virgin  and  the  saints,  sold  by  Juan  Martin  Salazar  of  Ycod, 
were  apparently  deemed  irreverent,  as  subordinating  the  divine 
to  the  commonplace  of  daily  life,  and  Fray  Lucas  Estebes  was 
ordered  to  go  to  his  shop,  with  alguazil  and  notary,  and  break 
the  stock  on  hand,  at  the  same  time  ascertaining  the  name  of 
the  seller  and  of  all  purchasers.  Soon  after  this,  in  1677,  an  edict 
was  issued  ordering  the  surrender  of  some  snuff-boxes,  brought 
by  an  English  vessel,  which  were  adorned  with  two  heads — one 
with  a  tiara  and  the  legend  dZcclesia  perversa  tenet  faciem  diaboli, 
and  the  other  of  a  philosopher  and  the  motto  Stulti  sapientes 
aliquando* 

In  the  latter  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  there  seems  to  be 
more  intellectual  activity  and  desire  to  seek  forbidden  sources 
of  knowledge,  for  we  begin  to  hear  of  licences  to  read  prohibited 
books.  A  register  of  them,  commencing  in  1766,  shows  that  when 
obtained  from  the  inquisitor-general  they  had  to  be  submitted 
to  the  tribunal  for  its  endorsement,  but  it  could  exercise  the  dis- 
cretion of  suspending  and  protesting,  as  in  the  case  of  one  granted, 
in  1786,  by  Pius  VI  and  endorsed  by  Inquisitor-general  Rubin  de 


Birch,  II,  563-66.  2  Ibidem,  640-2,  705.  »  Ibidem,  p.  716,  847-8 


CENSORSHIP  179 

Cevallos,  to  Fray  Antonio  Ramond,  on  which  the  tribunal  reports 
that  he  ought  not  to  have  it,  as  he  is  of  a  turbulent  spirit  and  dis- 
orderly life.  Licences  generally  made  exception  of  certain  speci- 
fied books  and  authors,  but  sometimes  they  were  granted  without 
limitation.  When  the  holder  of  a  licence  died,  it  was,  as  a  rule,  to 
be  returned  to  the  tribunal.1 

At  this  period  the  main  activity  of  the  tribunal  was  in  its  func- 
tion of  censorship.  It  did  not  content  itself  with  awaiting  orders 
but  assumed  to  investigate  for  itself;  nothing  escaped  its  vigilance, 
and  we  are  told  that  the  monthly  lists  which  it  forwarded  to  the 
Suprema  of  the  books  denounced  or  suppressed  are  surprising  as 
coming  from  a  province  so  small  and  so  uncultured.  In  fact, 
in  1781  it  expressed  its  grief  that  great  and  small,  men  and  women, 
were  abandoning  themselves  to  reading,  especially  French  books.2 
To  do  it  justice  it  labored  strenuously  to  discourage  culture  and  to 
perpetuate  obscurantism. 

Yet  the  visitas  de  navios,  as  described  in  a  letter  of  August  23, 
1787,  were  less  obstructive  to  commerce  than  the  practice  in  Spain. 
When  a  vessel  cast  anchor,  after  the  visit  of  the  health  officer,  the 
captain  landed  and,  in  company  with  the  consul  of  his  nation, 
went  to  the  military  governor,  and  then  to  the  Inquisition  where, 
under  oath,  he  declared  his  nationality,  his  port  of  departure  and 
what  passengers  and  cargo  he  brought.  When  the  vessel  was 
discharging,  the  secretary  of  the  tribunal  superintended  the 
process  and  noted  whatever  he  deemed  objectionable,  whence  it 
often  happened  that  matters  adverse  to  religion  were  seized.3 

Notwithstanding  all  vigilance,  however,  the  dangerous  stuff 
found  entrance.  The  works  of  Voltaire  and  Rousseau  were  widely 
read  among  the  educated  class  and  the  hands  of  the  tribunal  were 
practically  tied.  It  would  laboriously  gather  testimony  and 
compile  a  sumaria  against  one  who  read  prohibited  books,  only  to"" 
be  told,  when  submitting  it  to  the  Suprema,  to  suspend  action 
for  the  present.  In  a  letter  of  May  24,  1788,  it  complained  bit- 


1  Birch  II,  940-7.  a  Millares,  IV,  33-6.  s  Ibidem,  pp.  36-7. 


130  THE  CANARIES 

terly  of  this  and  of  the  consequent  diminution  of  respect  for  the 
Inquisition.  Chief  among  the  offenders  were  the  Commandant- 
general  and  the  Regent  of  the  Audiencia,  whose  cases  had  been 
sent  on  April  26th.  Their  openly  expressed  contempt  for  the 
tribunal  perverted  the  whole  people,  who  laughed  at  censures 
and  read  prohibited  books.  An  object  of  especial  aversion  was 
the  distinguished  historian  of  the  Canaries,  Jose  de  Viera  y  Cla- 
vijo,  Archdeacon  of  Fuerteventura.  His  sermons  had  caused  him 
to  be  reprimanded  repeatedly  and,  when  his  history  appeared 
with  its  explanation  of  the  apparition  of  the  Virgen  de  Candelaria 
and  other  miracles  of  the  Conquest,  and  its  account  of  the  contro- 
versies between  the  chapter  and  the  tribunal,  the  indignation  of 
the  latter  was  unbounded.  A  virulent  report  was  made  to  the 
Suprema,  September  18,  1784,  which  remained  unanswered. 
Another  was  sent,  February  7,  1792,  complaining  of  the  evil 
effect  of  allowing  the  circulation  of  such  writings,  but  this  failed 
to  elicit  action,  for  the  work  was  never  placed  on  the  Index.1 

Whatever  may  have  been  its  deficiencies  in  other  respects,  the 
tribunal  seems  never  to  have  lost  sight  of  its  functions  in  foment- 
ing discord  with  the  authorities,  secular  and  ecclesiastical.  In 
1521  we  hear  of  Inquisitor  Ximenes  excommunicating  some  of  the 
canons,  in  consequence  of  which  the  chapter  withdrew  the  reve- 
nue of  his  prebend  and  sent  a  special  envoy  to  the  court,  but  he 
appealed  to  Rome  and  a  royal  c6dula  of  July  8,  1523,  ordered  the 
chapter  to  make  the  payments.2  Even  during  the  inertness  of 
Padilla's  later  inquisitorship,  he  had  sufficient  energy  to  carry  on  a 
desperate  quarrel  with  the  Audiencia.  He  ordered  the  deputy 
governor,  Juan  Arias  de  la  Mota,  to  arrest  Alonso  de  Lemos,  who 
had  been  denounced  to  the  tribunal  and,  on  his  obeying,  the 
Audiencia  arrested  and  prosecuted  him,  which  led  to  an  envenomed 
controversy  in  which  excommunications  and  interdict  were  freely 
employed,  until  Philip  II,  February  16,  1562,  ordered  the  libera- 
tion of  Arias,  adding  an  emphatic  command  in  future  to  give  to 

»  Miilares,  IV,  39,  42-44.  >  Ibidem,  I,  79-80. 


CONFLICTS  OF  JURISDICTION  181 

the  inquisitor  and  his  officials  all  the  favor  and  aid  that  they 
might  require  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties  and  to  honor  them 
as  was  done  everywhere  throughout  his  dominions.  It  was  doubt- 
less in  the  hope  of  putting  an  end  to  these  unseemly  disturbances 
that  Philip,  by  a  ce*dula  of  October  10,  1567,  prescribed  rules  for 
settling  competencias,  or  conflicts  over  jurisdiction.  The  inquis- 
itor and  the  Regent  of  the  Audiencia  were  required  to  confer, 
when,  if  they  could  not  come  to  an  agreement,  the  bishop  was  to 
be  called  in,  when  the  majority  should  decide.1 

No  regulations  were  of  avail  to  prevent  the  dissensions  for 
which  all  parties  were  eager  and  which  were  rendered  especially 
bitter  by  the  domineering  assumption  of  superiority  by  the  Inqui- 
sition. It  was  not  long  after  Funez  had  reorganized  the  tribunal 
that  he  became  involved  in  an  angry  controversy  with  Bishop 
Cristobal  Vera.  Alonso  de  Valdes,  a  canon,  incurred  the  episcopal 
displeasure  by  removing  his  name  from  an  order  addressed  to 
the  chapter  for  the  reason  that  he  was  not  present.  Vera  there- 
upon imprisoned  him  incomunicado  so  strictly  that  his  food  was 
handed  in  to  him  through  a  window.  It  chanced  that  Valde*s 
was  also  notary  of  the  tribunal  and  Funez  claimed  jurisdiction, 
but  the  bishop  refused  to  surrender  him,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that 
the  absence  of  its  notary  impeded  the  Inquisition.  The  tribunal 
complained  to  the  Suprema  which  came  to  its  aid  in  a  fashion 
showing  how  complete  was  the  ascendancy  claimed  over  the  episco- 
pal order,  and  how  little  chance  a  bishop  had  in  a  contest  with 
such  an  antagonist.  Inquisitor-general  Quiroga  wrote  to  Vera 
that,  if  the  fault  of  Valdes  was  such  that  he  should  punish  it,  this 
should  have  been  done  in  such  wise  as  not  to  impede  the  operation 
of  the  tribunal.  He  hoped  that  already  the  case  would  have  been 
handed  over  to  the  tribunal  to  which  it  belonged  and  that  in 
future  Vera  would  not  give  occasion  for  such  troubles.  This 
was  enclosed  in  a  letter  of  instructions  from  the  Suprema  prescrib- 
ing the  utmost  courtesy  and  the  most  vigorous  action.  Funez 
is  to  call,  with  a  witness,  on  the  bishop  and  demand  the  person  of 

1  Millares,  I,  130j  II,  166. 


182  THE  CANARIES 

Valdes  and  the  papers  in  the  case,  as  being  his  rightful  judge,  at 
the  same  time  promising  his  punishment  to  the  bishop's  satisfac- 
tion. If  Vera  refuses,  Quiroga's  letter  is  to  be  handed  to  him, 
and  if  he  still  refuses  he  is  to  be  told  that  he  obliges  the  tribunal 
to  proceed  according  to  law. 

This  so-called  law  is  that  the  fiscal  shall  commence  prosecution 
against  the  bishop  and  his  officials  for  impeding  the  Inquisition. 
Then  the  inquisitor  is  to  issue  his  formal  mandate  against  the 
provisor,  officials,  gaolers,  etc.,  ordering  them,  under  pain  of  major 
excommunication  and  200  ducats  without  further  notice,  to  sur- 
render Valdes  within  three  days  to  the  tribunal  for  punishment, 
so  that  he  can  resume  his  office  of  notary.  If  this  does  not  suffice, 
a  similar  mandate  is  to  be  issued  against  the  bishop,  under  pain 
of  privation  of  entering  his  church.  If  the  provisor  and  officials 
persist  in  disobedience  through  three  rebeldias  (contumacies  of 
ten  days  each),  the  inquisitor  shall  proclaim  them  excommuni- 
cated. If  the  bishop  is  stubborn  he  is  to  be  prohibited  from 
entering  his  church  and  to  be  admonished  that  if  he  does  not  com- 
ply he  will  be  suspended  from  his  orders  and  fined.  If  he  per- 
severes through  three  rebeldias,  letters  shall  be  issued  declaring 
him  to  have  incurred  these  penalties  and  admonishing  him  to 
obey  within  three  days  under  pain  of  major  excommunication. 
If  still  contumacious,  letters  shall  be  issued  declaring  him  pub- 
licly excommunicated  and  subject  to  the  fine,  which  shall  be  col- 
lected by  levy  and  execution.  In  all  this  he  is  not  to  be  inhibited 
from  cognizance  of  the  case,  but  only  that  he  must  not  impede 
the  Inquisition  by  detaining  its  notary,  and,  as  it  is  very  possible 
that  he  may  seek  the  aid  of  the  Audiencia,  if  it  intervenes  it  is 
to  be  notified  of  the  royal  ce*dula  (of  1553)  prohibiting  all  inter- 
ference in  cases  concerning  the  Inquisition.1 

This  portentous  document  was  received  in  the  tribunal,  April 
11,  1577.  It  was  impossible  to  contend  with  adversaries  armed 
with  such  weapons  and  Bishop  Vera  was  obliged  to  submit.  Not 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Canarias,  Visitas,  Leg.  250,  Lib.  in,  Cuad.  3,  fol.  1.- 
Millares,  II,  167-76. 


CONFLICTS  OF  JURISDICTION  183 

content  with  its  triumph  the  tribunal  undertook  to  humiliate 
him  still  further.  Dona  Ana  de  Sobranis  was  a  mystic  who  be- 
lieved herself  illuminated  and  gifted  with  miraculous  powers.  In 
1572  she  had  denounced  herself  because  a  Franciscan,  Fray 
Antonio  del  Jesus,  had  given  her,  as  he  said  by  command  of  God, 
nine  consecrated  hosts,  which  she  carried  always  with  her  and 
worshipped.  The  tribunal  took  the  hosts  and  dismissed  the 
case  but,  as  the  bishop  was  her  warm  admirer  and  extolled  her 
virtues,  to  mortify  him,  in  1580,  the  fiscal  presented  a  furious 
accusation  against  her,  as  a  receiver  and  fautor  of  heretics  and 
heresies.  She  was  arrested  and  imprisoned,  but  the  tribunal 
had  overreached  itself.  She  had  friends  who  appealed  to  the 
Suprema  and,  in  May,  1581,  there  came  from  it  a  decision  ordering 
a  public  demonstration  that  she  was  innocent  and  that  there  had 
been  no  cause  for  her  arrest.1 

Undeterred  by  the  fate  of  Bishop  Vera,  his  successor  Fernando 
de  Figueroa,  about  1590,  had  a  lively  struggle  with  the  tribunal. 
He  excommunicated  Doctor  Alonso  Pacheco,  regidor  of  the  Grand 
Canary  and  deputy  governor  of  Tenerife,  because  he  would  not 
abandon  illicit  relations  with  a  married  woman.  The  tribunal 
intervened  and  evoked  the  case,  giving  rise  to  a  prolonged  com- 
petencia,  which  remained  undecided  in  consequence  of  the  death 
of  the  culprit.2  Causes  of  such  strife  were  never  lacking  and  the 
first  half  of  the  seventeenth  century  was  largely  occupied  by  them 
and  by  an  endless  struggle  to  compel  the  chapter  to  allow  to  the 
inquisitors  cushioned  chairs  in  the  cathedral.3  On  one  occasion, 
in  1619,  the  chapter  offended  the  tribunal  by  obeying  a  royal 
cedula  and  disregarding  a  threat  which  enjoined  disobedience. 
The  canons  were  thereupon  excommunicated  and  appealed  to 
the  king,  who  found  himself  obliged  to  withdraw  the  ce*dula.4 
The  overbearing  conduct  of  the  tribunal  produced  a  chronic  feel- 
ing of  exasperation  and  the  veriest  trifle  was  sufficient  to  cause 
an  outbreak.  One  custom  provocative  of  much  bad  blood  was 


1  Millares,  II,  32-36.  2  Ibidem,  II,  104. 

8  Ibidem,  III,  25,  42-3.  4  Ibidem,  I,  125-6. 


184  THE  CANARIES 

that  of  selecting  in  Lent  a  fishing-boat  and  ordering  it  to  bring 
its  catch  to  the  Inquisition,  when,  after  supplying  the  officials 
and  prisoners,  if  there  was  anything  left  it  might  be  sold  to  the 
people.  In  1629  the  municipality  fruitlessly  complained  of  this 
to  the  visitor  Juan  de  Escobar,  and  in  1631  there  was  an  explosion. 
The  Audiencia  rudely  intervened  by  throwing  in  prison  Bartolome* 
Alonso,  the  luckless  master  of  a  boat  selected,  and  threatening 
to  scourge  him  through  the  streets.  He  managed  to  convey  word 
to  the  tribunal,  which  at  once  sent  its  secretary  Aguilera  to  the 
Audiencia,  with  a  message  asking  the  release  of  Alonso,  but  the 
Audiencia  refused  to  receive  anything  but  a  written  communi- 
cation and  Aguilera  came  back  with  a  mandate  requiring  obedience 
under  pain  of  two  hundred  ducats,  but  he  was  received  with 
insults  and  Alonso  was  publicly  sentenced  to  a  hundred  lashes. 
Then  the  tribunal  declared  the  judges  excommunicate,  displayed 
their  names  as  such  in  the  churches  and  had  the  bells  rung.  The 
Audiencia  disregarded  the  censures  and  arrested  Aguilera,  while 
the  Alcaide  Salazar,  who  had  accompanied  him,  hid  himself, 
but  the  Audiencia  ordered  a  female  slave  of  his  to  be  seized  and 
his  house  to  be  torn  down,  in  response  to  which  the  tribunal  pub- 
lished heavier  censures  and  fines,  demanding  the  release  of  the 
prisoners.  Then  Bishop  Murga  intervened  and  asked  the  tribunal 
to  accept  an  honorable  compromise,  but  it  refused;  he  returned 
to  the  charge,  urging  the  affliction  of  the  people,  who  dreaded  an 
interdict  at  a  time  when  there  was  so  much  need  of  rain  and  when 
Holy  Week  was  approaching;  if  reference  were  made  to  the 
Suprema  there  would  be  a  delay  of  six  months  and  meanwhile  the 
prisoners  under  trial  by  the  Audiencia  would  languish  in  gaol,  for 
the  judges  would  be  incapacitated  by  the  excommunication.  The 
inquisitors,  in  their  report  to  the  Suprema,  explained  that,  seeing 
that  the  people  were  ready  for  a  disastrous  outbreak,  and  as  the 
bishop  promised  that  the  prisoners  should  be  released  at  once  (as 
they  were,  after  a  confinement  of  five  hours)  they  ordered  the 
excommunicates  to  be  absolved  and  abstained  from  proceeding 
against  the  guilty.  Then,  when  peace  seemed  restored,  the  quar- 


CONFLICTS  OF  JURISDICTION  185 

rel  broke  out  fiercely  again,  for  the  inquisitors  demanded  the  sur- 
render of  the  warrant  of  arrest,  which  Bartolome  Ponce,  the  offi- 
cial charged  with  it,  refused  to  give  up.  He  was  arrested  and  as, 
after  two  days,  he  appealed  to  the  Audiencia,  they  manacled  him 
and  ordered  the  arrest  of  the  advocate  and  procurator  who  had 
drawn  up  the  appeal.  This  secured  the  surrender  of  the  docu- 
ment and  the  inquisitors  felicitated  themselves  to  the  Suprema 
on  the  vigor  with  which  they  had  impressed  on  every  one  the 
power  of  the  Inquisition.  Whether  the  innocent  cause  of  the 
disturbance,  the  fisherman  Bartolome*  Alonso,  received  his  lashes, 
seems  to  have  been  an  incident  too  unimportant  to  be  recorded.1 

Rodrigo  Gutierrez  de  la  Rosa,  who  was  bishop  from  1652  to 
1658,  was  a  man  of  violent  temper,  not  as  easily  subdued  as  Bishop 
Vera,  and  his  episcopate  was  a  prolonged  quarrel  with  his  chapter 
and  with  the  tribunal.  In  1654,  Doctor  Guirola,  the  commissioner 
at  Santa  Cruz  de  Tenerife,  was  denounced,  for  his  oppression,  to 
the  bishop,  who  ordered  an  investigation  and  his  arrest  if  cause 
were  found.  This  proved  to  be  the  case  and  the  arrest  was  made, 
against  which  the  tribunal  protested  in  terms  so  irritating  that 
Gutierrez  excommunicated  all  its  officials,  ringing  the  bells  and 
placing  their  names  on  the  tablillas,  besides  imposing  a  fine  of  2000 
ducats  on  each  of  the  inquisitors.  They  met  this  by  calling  on 
the  civil  and  military  authorities  for  forcible  aid  and  summoned 
all  the  bishop's  dependents  to  assist  them.  Miguel  de  Collado, 
the  secretary,  went  to  the  cathedral  to  serve  these  notices,  on 
hearing  which  Gutierrez  hastened  thither  with  his  followers  and, 
not  finding  Collado,  proceeded  to  the  house  of  Inquisitor  Jose 
Badaran,  which  he  searched  from  bottom  to  top  for  pledges  to 
secure  the  payment  of  the  fine.  Word  was  carried  to  the  tribunal, 
when  the  inquisitors,  with  a  guard  of  soldiers,  went  to  Badaran's 
house,  which  they  found  barred  against  them,  broke  open  the 
door  and  a  stormy  interview  ensued.  The  bishop  in  the  cathe- 
dral, published  Badaran  and  the  fiscal  as  excommunicates;  the 
inquisitors  ordered  the  notices  of  excommunication  removed  and 

1  Millares,  III,  51-7. 


186  THE  CANARIES 

fined  the  bishop  in  4000  ducats.  To  collect  this,  they  embargoed 
his  revenues  in  Tenerife  and  he  in  turn  embargoed  the  fruits  of 
their  prebends.  They  obtained  guards  of  soldiers  posted  in  their 
houses  and  in  that  of  the  fiscal,  fearing  attack  from  the  satellites 
of  the  bishop,  such  as  he  had  made  in  1552  in  the  cathedral  and 
in  1554  at  the  house  of  the  dean.  In  reporting  all  this  to  the 
Suprema,  they  promise  to  send  the  fiscal  with  all  the  documents 
by  the  next  vessel,  for  the  authority  and  power  of  the  Inquisition 
depend  upon  the  result.1 

While  this  was  pending  a  quarrel  arose  between  the  tribunal  and 
the  chapter,  because  the  latter  refused  to  pay  to  the  fiscal  the 
fruits  of  his  prebend.  Inquisitor-general  Arce  y  Reynoso  ordered 
the  chapter  to  make  the  payment,  which  led  the  canon  Matheo 
de  Cassares  and  the  racionero  Cristobal  Vandama  to  commit 
certain  acts  of  disrespect.  To  punish  this  the  inquisitors,  on 
November  16,  1655,  arrested  them,  in  conformity  with  the  rules 
prescribed  by  the  Suprema,  in  its  letter  of  September  6,  1644, 
respecting  the  arrest  of  prebendaries,  but,  at  the  prayer  of  the 
chapter,  they  were  released  on  the  third  day.  They  were  friends 
of  Bishop  Gutierrez,  who  nursed  his  wrath  until  December  26th, 
when  there  was  a  solemn  celebration  in  the  cathedral,  at  which 
Inquisitor  Frias  celebrated  mass.  When  Inquisitor  Badaran 
entered  and  took  his  seat  in  the  choir,  Gutierrez  in  a  loud  voice 
commanded  him  to  leave  the  church,  as  he  was  under  excom- 
munication for  arresting  clerics  without  jurisdiction.  To  avoid 
creating  a  tumult  he  did  so;  Frias  celebrated  mass  and  then 
joined  him  in  the  tribunal,  where  they  drew  up  the  necessary 
papers.  The  affair  of  course  created  an  immense  scandal  and  led 
to  prolonged  correspondence  with  the  Suprema,  which  ordered  it 
suspended  April  12,  1657.2  They  were  not  much  more  successful 
in  the  outcome  of  the  previous  quarrel,  although  they  succeeded, 
at  the  end  of  1656,  in  procuring  a  royal  order  summoning  Gutierrez 
to  the  court.  In  communicating  this  to  the  bishop,  December  13, 
1656,  the  Licenciate  Bias  Canales  advises  him,  if  he  has  any  money 


Millares,  III,  58-68.  3  Birch,  II,  597-601. 


CONFLICTS  OF  JURISDICTION  187 

to  spare,  to  invest  it  in  a  jewel  for  presentation  to  the  king, 
through  the  hands  of  the  minister  Louis  de  Haro.  He  probably 
followed  the  judicious  counsel,  for  the  matter  ended  with  a  decree 
relieving  him  from  the  fine  imposed  on  him  by  the  inquisitors.1 

The  next  encounter  was  with  the  Audiencia,  in  1661.  For 
eight  years  there  had  been  no  physician  in  the  island,  when  the 
tribunal,  needing  one  for  the  torture-chamber,  induced,  in  1659, 
Dr.  Domingo  Rodriguez  Ramos  to  come.  He  became  a  frequent 
visitor  at  the  house  of  Dona  Beatriz  de  Herrera,  the  amiga  of  the 
judge  Alvaro  Gil  de  la  Sierpe,  to  whom  she  had  borne  several 
children.  Sierpe  became  jealous  and,  on  some  pretext,  Dr. 
Ramos  was  arrested,  January  28,  1661,  and  imprisoned  in  chains. 
The  tribunal  asserted  its  jurisdiction  by  inhibiting  the  Audiencia 
from  prosecuting  the  case  and,  on  this  being  disregarded,  the 
judges  were  excommunicated  with  all  the  solemnities.  They 
impassively  continued  their  functions;  the  tribunal  then  excom- 
municated the  officials  of  the  court,  who  were  more  easily  fright- 
ened ;  for  several  months  there  was  much  popular  excitement  but, 
in  October,  the  competencia  was  decided  in  favor  of  the  Audien- 
cia— doubtless  because  the  physician  was  not  an  official  of  the 
tribunal— and  a  royal  letter  sharply  rebuked  the  inquisitors.2 

The  tribunal  was  evidently  losing  its  prestige  and  matters  did 
not  improve  with  the  advent  of  the  Bourbon  dynasty.  The 
enmity  between  it  and  the  chapter  continued  undiminished  and 
when,  on  the  death  of  the  Marquis  of  Celada,  in  1707,  his  son,  the 
Inquisitor  Bartolome  Benitez  de  Lugo,  asked  that  his  exequies 
should  be  performed  in  the  cathedral,  the  request  was  refused. 
This  led  to  a  violent  rupture,  in  the  course  of  which  the  tribunal 
voted  the  arrest  of  the  canons,  with  sequestration.  The  chapter 
appealed  to  Philip  V,  who  condemned  the  tribunal  in  a  ce"dula  of 
November  7,  1707.  This  did  not  arrive  until  the  following  year, 
when  the  chapter  kept  it  secret  until  Easter;  in  the  crowded 
solemnity  of  the  feast-day,  when  Inquisitor  Benitez  was  present,  a 
secretary  mounted  the  pulpit  and  read  the  royal  decree,  to  his 

1  Millares,  III,  69-70.  2  Ibidem,  73-5. 


188  THE  CANAEIES 

great  mortification.1  Even  worse  befell  the  tribunal  in  1714, 
when  its  inexcusable  violence,  in  another  quarrel  with  the  chapter, 
led  Philip  V  to  demand  the  recall  of  the  inquisitors  and  to  enforce 
his  commands  in  spite  of  the  repeated  tergiversations  of  the 
Suprema.2 

As  the  eighteenth  century  advanced,  the  hostility  of  ecclesias- 
tics and  laymen  towards  the  tribunal  continued  unabated,  while 
respect  for  it  rapidly  decreased  and  its  functions  dwindled,  except 
in  the  matter  of  censorship.  A  curious  manifestation  of  the 
feeling  entertained  for  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  attitude  of  the  parish 
priests  with  regard  to  the  sanbenitos  of  the  heretics  hung  in  their 
churches.  A  report  on  the  subject  called  for  by  the  Suprema,  in 
1788,  elicited  the  statement  that  for  many  years  there  had  been 
no  culprits  of  the  class  requiring  sanbenitos.  In  1756,  when  the 
walls  of  the  parish  church  of  Los  Remedies  de  La  Laguna  were 
whitened,  the  incumbents  resisted  the  replacement  of  the  sanben- 
itos, or  at  least  wished  to  hang  them  where  they  should  not  be 
seen,  but  the  tribunal  ordered  them  to  be  renovated  and  hung 
conspicuously.  In  the  Dominican  church  of  Las  Palmas,  there 
used  to  be  sanbenitos,  but  they  had  disappeared  and  the  inquisi- 
tors could  not  explain  the  cause  of  their  removal.  Eight  years 
ago  the  parish  church  of  Telde  was  whitened  and  the  incumbents 
would  not  replace  them;  Inquisitor  Padilla  was  informed  of  this, 
but  he  took  no  action.  The  only  ones  then  to  be  seen  in  Las 
Palmas  were  in  the  cathedral;  the  building  was  undergoing  altera- 
tions and  the  walls  would  be  whitened,  which  the  inquisitors 
expected  would  be  alleged  as  a  reason  for  removing  them.3 
Equally  suggestive  of  the  feeling  of  the  laity  is  the  fact  that,  when 
the  position  of  alguazil  mayor  fell  vacant,  it  was  offered  in  vain 
to  representatives  of  the  principal  families,  who  all  declined  under 
various  pretexts.4 

The  sentiment  of  the  population  was  duly  represented  by  the 

1  Millares,  IV,  18-19 ~ 

1  For  details  see  History  of  the  Inquisition  of  Spain,  I,  348. 

1  Miliares,  IV,  23-29.  4  Ibidem,  p.  70. 


SUPPRESSION  189 

eloquent  priest  Ruiz  de  Padron  in  the  debates  of  the  Cortes  of 
Cadiz,  in  1813,  and  the  suppression  of  the  Inquisition  was  greeted 
by  the  ecclesiastics  of  the  Canaries  in  a  temper  very  different  from 
that  manifested  in  the  Peninsula.  The  bishop,  Manuel  Verdugo, 
a  native  of  Las  Palmas,  was  an  enlightened  man,  who  had  had 
frequent  differences  with  the  tribunal.  The  decree  of  suppression 
was  received  by  him  March  31st;  it  was  his  duty  to  take  charge 
of  the  archives  and  to  close  the  building,  and  he  lost  no  time  in 
communicating  it  to  the  inquisitors,  Jose  Francisco  Borbujo  y 
Riba  and  Antonio  Fernando  de  Echanove.  The  chapter  was 
overjoyed  and,  at  a  session  on  April  3d,  it  addressed  the  Cortes, 
characterizing  the  decree  as  manifestly  the  work  of  God  and  as 
removing  from  the  Church  of  Christ  a  blemish  which  rendered  reli- 
gion odious.  The  same  afternoon  the  sanbenitos  in  the  cathedral 
were  solemnly  burnt  in  the  patio.  The  bishop  also  reported  to 
the  Cortes  that  their  manifesto,  which  had  excited  the  canons  of 
Cadiz  to  such  extremity  of  opposition,  had  been  duly  read  that 
morning,  and  that  he  had  been  greatly  pleased  to  see  that  the 
acts  of  the  Cortes  had  been  received  throughout  his  diocese  with 
universal  satisfaction.  He  lost  no  time  in  taking  possession  of  the 
archives,  but  the  inquisitors  had  already  taken  the  precaution  to 
remove,  from  the  volume  of  their  correspondence  with  the  Suprema, 
two  leaves  in  which  they  had  spoken  ill  of  him.  The  financial 
officials  at  the  same  time  assumed  charge  of  the  landed  property 
and  censos,  or  ground-rents,  of  the  tribunal,  which  we  are  told 
were  large  and  numerous.  Inquisitor  Borbujo  remained  at  his 
post,  awaiting  the  reaction.  The  poets  of  the  island  were  prompt 
in  expressing  the  exuberance  of  their  joy  in  verses,  for  which 
action  was  subsequently  taken  against  the  priest,  Mariano  Romero, 
Don  Rafael  Bento  and  Don  Francisco  Guerra  y  Bethencourt.1 

When  the  Restoration  swiftly  followed,  Inquisitor  Borbujo 
received,  on  August  17,  1814,  the  decree  re-establishing  the  Inqui- 
sition and  called  on  the  bishop  to  surrender  the  building,  but  the 
latter  declared  that  he  must  await  orders  from  competent  author- 

1  Millares,  IV,  87,  97-100. 


190  THE  CANARIES 

ity.  On  September  29th  there  came  an  order  for  the  re-installa- 
tion of  the  tribunal  and  Borbujo  made  another  effort  to  gain 
possession  of  the  building  and  property,  but  it  was  not  until  a 
royal  mandate  of  November  28th  was  received  that  he  succeeded 
in  dping  so.  The  tribunal  was  thus  fairly  put  on  its  feet  again, 
but  such  was  the  abhorrence  in  which  it  was  held  that  its  edicts 
were  torn  down,  its  jurisdiction  was  everywhere  contested,  and 
its  offices  of  alguazil  and  familiars  could  not  be  filled.1 

Thus  resuscitated,  it  diligently  collected  the  pamphlets  and 
periodicals  and  verses  of  the  revolutionary  period,  and  molested 
their  authors  as  far  as  it  could.  In  fact,  under  the  Restoration, 
except  the  occasional  prosecution  of  a  wise-woman,  its  functions, 
as  in  Spain,  were  mainly  political,  liberalism  being  equivalent  to 
heresy  and,  except  when  it  had  some  political  end  in  view,  its 
efforts  were  ridiculed  by  both  the  civil  and  military  authorities, 
which  regarded  it  with  no  respect  and  encroached  upon  it  from 
all  sides.  When  the  Revolution  of  1820  broke  out,  news  of 
Fernando  VIFs  oath  to  the  Constitution  and  decree  of  March  9th 
suppressing  the  Holy  Office  reached  Santa  Cruz  de  Tenerife  April 
29th  and  Las  Palmas  some  days  later.  Amid  popular  rejoicings, 
the  Inquisition  closed  its  doors,  delivered  up  its  archives  and  the 
inquisitors  sailed  for  Spain.  No  care  was  taken  of  the  archives, 
which  were  pillaged  by  curiosity  hunters  and  those  whose  inter- 
ests led  them  to  acquire  documents  concerning  limpieza  or  old 
law-suits.  What  remained  were  stored  in  a  damp,  unventilated 
place;  when  removed,  they  were  carried  off  by  cartloads,  without 
keeping  them  in  any  order  and,  in  1874,  Millares  describes  them 
as  forming  a  pile  of  chaotic,  mutilated  and  illegible  papers  in  a 
room  of  the  City  Hall.2 

The  reader  may  reasonably  ask  what,  in  its  labor  of  three 
centuries,  the  tribunal  of  the  Canaries  accomplished  to  justify 
its  existence. 

1  Millares,  IV,  105-6.  l  Ibidem,  pp.  106-9,  114-17. 


CHAPTER    VI. 

MEXICO. 

THE  ostensible  object  of  the  Spanish  conquests  in  the  New 
World  was  the  propagation  of  the  faith.  This  was  the  sole 
motive  alleged  by  Alexander  VI,  in  the  celebrated  bull  of  1493, 
conferring  on  the  Spanish  sovereigns  domination  over  the  terri- 
tories discovered  by  Columbus;  it  was  asserted  in  the  codicil  to 
Queen  Isabella's  will,  urging  her  husband  and  children  to  keep 
it  ever  in  view,  and  it  was  put  forward  in  all  the  commissions  and 
instructions  issued  to  the  adventurers  who  converted  the  shores 
of  the  Caribbean  into  scenes  of  oppression  and  carnage.1  If 
Philip  II  was  solicitous  to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  faith  in  his 
own  dominions,  he  was  no  less  anxious  to  spread  it  beyond  the 
seas;  he  prescribed  this  as  one  of  the  chief  duties  of  his  officers, 
describing  it  as  the  principal  object  of  Spanish  rule,  to  which  all 
questions  of  profit  and  advantage  were  to  be  regarded  as  sub- 
ordinate.2 

It  must  be  admitted,  however,  that  the  effort  to  spread  the 
gospel  lagged  behind  those  directed  to  the  acquisition  of  the  pre- 
cious metals.  It  is  true  that,  on  the  second  voyage  of  Columbus, 
in  1493,  the  sovereigns  sent  Fray  Buil,  with  a  dozen  clerics  and  full 
papal  faculties,  but  he  busied  himself  more  in  quarrelling  with 
the  admiral  than  in  converting  the  heathen.3  The  first  regular 
missionaries  of  whom  we  have  knowledge  were  two  Franciscans 
who,  in  1500,  accompanied  Bobadilla  to  the  West  Indies  and,  in 
a  letter  of  October  12th  of  that  year,  reported  to  the  Observan- 
tine  Vicar-general,  Olivier  Maillard,  that  they  found  the  natives 

1  Alex.  PP.  VI  Bull  Inter  ccetera,  4  Maii,  1493  (Bullar.  Rom.  I,  454).— Mariana, 
Hist,  de  Espana,  T.  IX,  Append.,  p.  xxvi  (Ed.  1796). — Recopilacion  de  lasLeyes 
de  las  Indias,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  i,  ley  2. 

2  Recop.,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  i,  ley  5;  Lib.  n,  Tit.  ii,  ley  8. 

8  Torquemada,  De  la  Monarqufa  Indiana,  Lib.  xviu,  cap.  8. 

(191) 


192  MEXICO 

eager  for  conversion  and  that  they  had  baptized  three  thousand 
in  the  first  port  which  they  reached  in  Hispanola.1  They  were 
followed,  in  1502,  by  a  few  more  Franciscans  under  Fray  Alonso 
del  Espinal,  a  worthy  man,  according  to  Las  Casas,  but  who  could 
think  of  nothing  but  the  Summa  Angelica  of  his  brother  Francis- 
can, Angelo  da  Chivasso.2  The  first  earnest  effort  to  instruct  the 
natives  was  made  by  Fray  Pedro  de  C6rdova,  who  came  in  1510 
with  two  Dominicans  and  was  soon  followed  by  ten  or  twelve 
more ;  during  the  succeeding  years  he  and  the  Franciscans  founded 
some  missionary  stations  on  the  coast  of  Tierra  Firme,  but  they 
were  broken  up  by  the  Indians  in  1523.3  As,  however,  we  are 
told  that  none  of  the  missionaries  took  the  trouble  to  learn  the 
Indian  languages,  their  evangelizing  success  may  be  doubted.4 

The  efforts  to  organize  a  church  establishment  proceeded  but 
slowly  at  first.  Hispanola  was  divided  into  two  bishoprics, 
San  Domingo  and  la  Vega.  For  the  former,  at  a  date  not  defi- 
nitely stated,  the  Franciscan,  Garcia  de  Padilla,  was  appointed, 
but  he  died  before  setting  out  to  take  possession.  For  the  latter, 
Pero  Suarez  Deza,  nephew  of  Inquisitor-general  Deza,  was  chosen 
and  we  are  told  that  he  governed  his  see  for  some  years5  but, 
as  he  figures  in  the  Lucero  troubles  of  Cordova,  in  1506,  as  the 
"archbishop-elect  of  the  Indies"  the  period  of  his  episcopate  is 
not  easily  definable.  However  this  may  be,  the  first  bishop 
who  appears  in  the  episcopal  lists  of  Hispanola  is  Alessandro 
Geraldino,  with  the  date  of  1520.6  Corte*s,  who  had  asked  to 
have  bishoprics  organized  in  his  new  conquests,  speedily  changed 
his  mind  and  requested  Charles  V  to  send  out  only  friars.  The 
priests  of  the  Indians,  he  said,  were  so  rigidly  held  to  modesty 
and  chastity  that,  if  the  people  were  to  witness  the  pomp  and 
disorderly  lives  of  the  Spanish  clergy,  they  would  regard  Chris- 


1  Cron.  Glassberger,  ann.  1500  (Analecta  Franciscana,  Tom.  II). 

2  Las  Casas,  Historia  de  las  Indias,  Lib.  in,  cap.  5,  14  (Coleccion  de  Documen- 
tos,  LXIV,  372,  422). 

1  Las  Casas,  op.  tit.,  Lib.  n,  cap.  54  (Col.  de  Doc.,  LXV,  275;  LXVI,  165,  180). 
4  Torquemada,  ubi  sup.  B  Ibidem. 

•  Gams,  Series  Episcoporum,  p.  148. 


NEW  CHRISTIANS  AS  COLONISTS  193 

tianity  as  a  farce  and  their  conversion  would  be  impracticable. 
Charles  heeded  the  warning  and,  during  the  rest  of  his  reign,  he 
appointed  as  bishops  only  members  of  the  religious  Orders,  while 
the  secular  clergy  were  but  sparingly  allowed  to  emigrate  and 
those  who  succeeded  in  going  earned  as  a  body  a  most  unenvi- 
able reputation.1  The  Church  thus  started  grew  rapidly  and, 
towards  the  close  of  the  century,  Padre  Mendieta  informs  us 
that  New  Spain  (comprising  Mexico  and  Central  America)  had 
ten  bishoprics,  besides  the  metropolitan  see  of  the  capital,  four 
hundred  convents  and  as  many  clerical  districts,  and  that  each 
of  these  eight  hundred  had  numerous  churches  in  its  charge.2 

It  seems  strange  that  the  Spanish  monarchs,  combining  earnest 
desire  for  the  propagation  of  the  faith  with  intense  zeal  for  its 
purity,  should  have  so  long  postponed  the  extension  of  the  Holy 
Office  over  their  new  dominions,  while  thus  active  in  building  up 
the  Church.  The  Indian  neophytes,  it  is  true,  were  not  in  need 
of  its  ministrations,  but  the  colonists  might  well  be  a  subject 
of  concern.  Manasseh  ben  Israel  (circa  1644)  tells  us  that,  after 
the  expulsion  in  1492,  many  Jews  and  Judaizing  New  Christians 
sought  an  asylum  in  the  New  World  and  that  Antonio  Montesinos, 
a  Spanish  Jew  who  had  long  lived  there,  reported  that  he  found 
the  Jewish  rites  carefully  preserved,  especially  in  certain  valleys 
of  South  America.3  It  is  true  that  there  were  repeated  efforts 
to  prohibit  New  Christians  and  those  who  had  been  penanced 
by  the  Inquisition,  with  their  descendants,  from  emigrating  to 
the  Indies,  but  this  was  a  provision  difficult  to  enforce,  and  relief 
from  it  was  a  financial  expedient  tempting  to  the  chronically 
empty  treasury  of  Spain.  In  the  great  composition  of  Seville, 
in  1509,  there  was  a  provision  that,  for  twenty  thousand  ducats, 

1  Torquemada,  op.  cit.,  Lib.  xv,  cap.  1,  10. — Col.  de  Doc.,  Tom.  XXVI,  p.  286. 

See  also  a  letter  of  the  Franciscan  Custodian  Fray  Angel  de  Valencia,  to  Charles 
V,  May  8,  1552.  If  the  description  of  his  brother  frailes  by  Fray  Pedro  Duran, 
in  a  letter  to  Philip  II,  Feb.  2, 1583,  be  not  exaggerated,  there  was  not  much  gained 
in  restricting  episcopal  appointments  to  the  regular  Orders. — J.  T.  Medina, 
Historia  de  la  Inquisicion  en  Mexico,  pp.  11,  12  (Santiago  de  Chile,  1905). 

3  Mendieta,  Hist,  eccles.  Indiana,  p.  549  (Mexico,  1870). 

*  Amador  de  los  Rios,  Hist,  de  los  Judlos,  III,  378. 
12 


194  MEXICO 

the  disability  should  be  in  so  far  removed  that  such  persons  could 
go  to  the  colonies  and  trade  there  for  two  years,  on  each  voyage. 
After  Ferdinand's  death,  this  was  confirmed  by  Charles  V,  but 
he  soon  afterwards,  September  24,  1518,  ordered  the  Casa  de 
Contratacion  of  Seville  not  to  permit  them  to  embark.  They 
complained  loudly  of  this  violation  of  faith  and,  on  January  23, 
1519,  he  ordered  the  Inquisition  of  Seville  to  examine  the  agree- 
ment and,  if  it  was  found  to  contain  such  a  clause,  the  prohibition 
should  be  withdrawn.  Six  months  later,  on  July  16th,  it  was 
renewed,  exciting  fresh  remonstrances  that  they  were  compelled 
to  pay  the  money  while  the  privilege  was  denied.  The  matter 
was  then  referred  to  the  Suprema,  which  decided  that  the  com- 
plaints were  justified,  whereupon  Charles,  on  December  13th, 
ordered  the  inquisitors  of  Seville  to  permit  them  to  go,  provided 
the  whole  amount  of  the  composition,  eighty  thousand  ducats, 
had  been  fully  paid.1  Thus,  in  one  way  or  another,  the  enter- 
prising New  Christians  sought  successfully  to  share  in  the  lucra- 
tive exploitation  of  the  colonies,  and  it  illustrates  the  ineffective- 
ness of  Spanish  administration  that,  in  1537,  it  felt  obliged  to 
call  in  papal  assistance  to  supplement  its  deficiencies.  Accord- 
ingly Paul  III,  in  his  bull  Altitudo  divini  consilii,  forbade  all 
apostates  from  going  to  the  Indies  and  commanded  the  colonial 
bishops  to  expel  any  who  might  come.2  Prince  Philip  followed 
this  by  a  decree  of  August  14, 1543,  ordering  all  viceroys,  governors 
and  courts  to  investigate  what  Moorish  slaves  or  freemen,  recently 
converted,  or  sons  of  Jews  resided  in  the  Indies  and  to  banish  all 
whom  they  might  discover,  sending  them  to  Spain  in  the  first 
ships,  for  in  no  case  were  they  to  be  allowed  to  remain.3 
It  is  evident  that  the  persevering  New  Christians  evaded  these 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  9,  fol.  71. 

See  also  a  letter  from  Alonzo  de  Zuazo  to  Chievres,  written  from  Hispailola, 
January  29,  1519,  urging  that  immigrants  be  invited  from  all  nations,  except 
Moors  and  Jews  and  the  reconciled  New  Christians  with  their  children  and  grand- 
children, who  were  prohibited  by  the  royal  ordinance. — Col.  de  Documentos, 
T.  II,  p.  371. 

3  Lorenzana,  Concilios  Provinciates  de  Mejico,  p.  32  (Mexico,  1769). 

'  Recop.  de  las  Indias,  Lib.  vn,  Tit.  v,  ley  29. 


EPISCOPAL  INQUISITION  195 

regulations  and  that  their  success  in  this  was  a  subject  of  solici- 
tude, yet  there  was  long  delay  in  providing  effectual  means  to 
preserve  the  faith  from  their  contamination.  It  is  true  that,  when 
bishoprics  were  erected,  the  jurisdiction  over  heresy,  inherent  in 
the  episcopal  office,  might  have  been  exercised  on  them,  had  not 
the  Inquisition  arrogated  to  itself  the  exclusive  cognizance  over 
all  matters  of  faith  and  regarded  with  extreme  jealousy  all  epis- 
copal invasions  of  its  province.  This  is  illustrated  by  a  case  in 
1515  which  shows  how  indisposed  it  was  even  to  delegate  its 
power.  Pedro  de  Leon,  with  his  wife  and  daughter,  had  sought 
refuge  in  Hispanola,  where  the  episcopal  provisor  arrested  them 
and  obtained  confessions  inculpating  them  and  others.  In 
place  of  authorizing  him  to  complete  the  trial  and  punish  them, 
the  Suprema  notified  him  that  the  inquisitor-general  was  sending 
a  special  messenger  to  bring  them  back  to  Seville,  together  with 
any  other  fugitives  whom  the  provisor  may  have  arrested,  and  he 
is  commanded  to  deliver  them  without  delay  or  prevarication, 
under  penalty  of  forfeiture  of  temporalities  and  citizenship; 
moreover,  the  Admiral  Diego  Colon  is  commanded  to  render  aid 
and  favor  and  the  Contratacion  of  Seville  is  required  to  furnish 
the  messenger  with  a  good  ship  to  take  him  to  the  Indies  and  to 
see  that  on  his  return  he  has  a  vessel  with  a  captain  beyond  sus- 
picion and  a  place  where  the  prisoners  can  be  confined  and  kept 
secluded  from  all  communication.1 

This  was  evidently  a  very  cumbrous  and  costly  method  of  deal- 
ing with  heretics,  but  it  does  not  appear  that  the  Holy  Office 
consented  to  delegate  its  powers  until  1519,  when  Charles  V,  by 
a  ce*dula  of  May  20th,  confirmed  the  appointment  by  Cardinal 
Adrian  the  inquisitor-general,  of  Alfonso  Manso,  Bishop  of 
Puertorico  and  the  Dominican  Pedro  de  Cordova,  as  inquisitors 
of  the  Indies,  and  ordered  all  officials  to  render  them  obedience 
and  assistance.2  On  the  death  of  Pedro,  the  appointing  power 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  3,  fol.  106,  107. 

2  Ibidem,  Lib.  9,  fol.  37. — Llorente  (Anales,  II,  91)  states  that  Ximenes,  May 
7,  1516,  appointed  Juan  Quevedo,  Bishop  of  Cuba,  as  delegate  inquisitor-general 
of  the  Indies,  with  power  to  appoint  judges  and  other  officials,  but  I  can  find  no 
trace  of  such  action  and,  if  the  appointment  was  made,  it  was  ineffective.    The 


196  MEXICO 

is  said  to  have  vested  in  the  Audiencia  of  San  Domingo  which,  in 
1524,  appointed  Martin  de  Valencia  as  commissioner.  He  was 
a  Franciscan  of  high  repute  for  holiness  who  in  that  year  reached 
Mexico  at  the  head  of  a  dozen  of  his  brethren  and  was  received 
by  the  Conquistadores  on  their  knees.  We  are  told  that  he 
burnt  a  heretic  and  reconciled  two  others,  which  if  true  would 
show  that  he  was  clothed  with  the  full  powers  of  an  inquisitor. 
He  soon  afterwards  returned  to  Spain  and  we  hear  of  Fray 
Tomds  Ortiz,  Fray  Domingo  de  Betanzos  and  Fray  Vicente  de 
Santa  Maria  as  succeeding  him  in  1526  and  1528,  but  the  refer- 
ences to  these  shadowy  personalities  are  conflicting  and  there 
are  no  records  of  their  activity.1 

With  the  appointment  of  bishops  in  New  Spain,  in  1527,  and 
the  gradual  systematic  organization  of  the  hierarchy,  it  would 
seem  that  special  inquisitoral  powers  were  delegated  to  them,  of 
the  results  of  which  we  have  traces  in  the  saribenitos  or  tdblillas 
of  those  burnt  or  reconciled  which  were  hung  in  the  cathedrals. 
Early  in  the  nineteenth  century  Padre  Jose  Pichardo  made  a 
list  of  those  remaining  in  the  cathedral  of  Mexico,  which  has 
recently  been  printed  and  from  this  we  learn  that  an  auto  de  fe 
was  celebrated  in  1536,  at  which  Andreas  Morvan  was  reconciled 
for  Lutheranism,  and  another  in  1539,  when  Francisco  Millan  was 
reconciled  for  Judaism  and  a.  cacique  of  Tezcoco  was  burnt  for 
offering  human  sacrifices.2  This  latter  stretch  of  authority  by 

first  see  erected  in  Cuba  was  that  of  Santiago,  in  1522  (Gams,  p.  146),  and  there 
could  have  been  none  as  early  as  1516,  as  the  first  expedition  to  the  island  under 
Diego  Velazquez  did  not  occur  until  1511.  Hefele  (Der  Cardinal  Ximenes,  p. 
497)  makes  Ximenes  appoint  Alessandro  Geraldino,  Bishop  of  San  Domingo 
and  his  colleague  of  la  Vega  inquisitors-general  but,  as  we  have  seen,  Geraldino 
was  not  appointed  as  bishop  until  1522,  four  years  after  the  death  of  Ximenes. 

1  Remesal,  Historia  de  la  Provincia  de  S.  Vicente  de  Chyapa  y  Guatemala, 
Lib  n,  cap.  iii. — Obregon,  Mexico  viejo,  1*  Serie,  pp.  179-80;  2a  Serie,  p.  390 
(Mexico,  1891-5). 

5  Obregon,  Mexico  viejo,  2*  Serie,  p.  333. 

It  would  seem  that  the  sanbenitos  were  not  hung  in  the  cathedral  until  1667, 
after  pressure  from  the  Suprema  to  compel  the  inquisitors  to  perform  the  work, 
which  must  have  been  considerable  if  they  had  to  be  compiled  from  the  records. 
The  number  then  hung  amounted  to  404. — Medina,  Historia  de  la  Inquisicion 
de  Mexico,  p.  317. 


EPISCOPAL  INQUISITION  197 

Archbishop  Zumtoaga  was  contrary  to  the  policy  of  the  govern- 
ment and,  in  1543,  Inquisitor-general  Tavera  superseded  him  by 
sending  Francisco  Tello  de  Sandoval,  inquisitor  of  Toledo,  to 
Mexico  to  perform  the  same  office.  His  commission,  dated  July 
18th  of  that  year,  empowers  him  to  take  up  and  prosecute  to 
the  end  all  cases  commenced  by  previous  inquisitors,  and  a  letter 
of  Prince  Philip,  July  24th,  to  the  royal  officials  of  New  Spain, 
commands  them  to  give  him  all  requisite  assistance.1  It  does 
not  appear,  however,  that  he  was  furnished  with  officials  to  organ- 
ize a  tribunal  and,  as  his  principal  charge  was  that  of  a  visitador 
or  inspector  of  the  ecclesiastical  establishment,  it  is  not  probable 
that  he  accomplished  much  as  inquisitor.  The  list  of  sanbenitos 
shows  no  more  autos  de  fe  until  1555,  by  which  time  the  work 
had  fallen  back  into  the  hands  of  Archbishop  Montiifar,  for  the 
home  Government  was  evidently  unwilling  to  assume  the  heavy 
cost  of  a  fully  organized  tribunal,  and  the  bishops  were  ready  to 
perform  its  duties.  When,  in  1545,  Las  Casas,  as  Bishop  of 
Chiapa,  asked  the  royal  Audiencia  of  Gracia  d  Dios  to  sustain 
him  in  his  episcopal  jurisdiction  against  his  recalcitrant  flock, 
he  makes  special  reference  to  cases  of  the  Inquisition  as  included 
in  it  and,  soon  after  this,  in  Peru,  Juan  Matienzo  says  that  the 
bishops  exercised  inquisitorial  jurisdiction  and  that,  when  any 
attempt  was  made  to  appeal  from  them,  they  would  elude  it  by 
claiming  that  they  were  acting  as  inquisitors.2  That  this  was 
recognized  at  home  is  manifested  by  Prince  Philip,  in  1553,  extend- 
ing to  the  Indies  the  Concordia  of  Castile  regulating  the  fuero 
of  familiars,  as  though  there  was  a  regularly  organized  Inqui- 
sition throughout  the  colonies.3 

In  the  auto  of  1555,  Geronimo  Venzon,  an  Italian,  was  recon- 
ciled for  Lutheranism  and  it  was  followed  by  one  in  1558,  when 
Maria  de  Ocampo  was  reconciled  for  pact  with  the  demon.4  There 


1  Puja,  Provisiones,  C&lulas,  Instrumentos  de  su  Magestad  etc.,  fol.  97  (Mexico, 
1563). 

2  Coleccion  de  Documentos,  LXX,  535. — Solorzani  de  Indiar.  Gubern.  Lib.  in, 
cap.  xxiv,  n.  9. 

8  Recop.  4e  las  Indias,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  xix,  ley  4.  4  Obregon,  loc.  cti. 


198  MEXICO 

was  also  an  Englishman  named  Robert  Thompson,  condemned  for 
Lutheranism  to  wear  the  sanbenito  for  three  years,  and  a  Genoese, 
Agostino  Boacio,  for  the  same  crime,  to  perpetual  prison  and 
sanbenito.  These  two  latter  were  shipped  to  Seville  to  perform 
their  penance,  but  Boacio  managed  to  escape  at  the  Azores. 
In  1560  there  were  seven  Lutherans  reconciled,  concerning  whom 
we  have  no  details;  in  1561  a  French  Calvinist  and  a  Greek 
schismatist  and  in  1562  two  French  Calvinists.1  This  shows 
that  the  episcopal  Inquisition  was  by  no  means  inert,  and  a 
sentence  rendered  by  the  Ordinary  of  Mexico,  in  1568,  indicates 
that  its  severity  might  cause  the  installation  of  the  regular  Holy 
Office  to  be  regarded  rather  as  a  relief.  A  Flemish  painter, 
Simon  Pereyns,  who  had  drifted  to  Mexico,  in  a  talk  with  a 
brother  artist,  Francisco  Morales,  chanced  to  utter  the  common 
remark  that  simple  fornication  was  not  a  sin  and  persisted  in  it 
after  remonstrance.  That  the  episcopal  Inquisition  was  thor- 
oughly established  is  indicated  by  his  considering  it  prudent  to 
denounce  himself  to  the  Officiality,  which  he  did  on  September  10, 
1568.  In  Spain  this  particular  heresy,  especially  in  esponta- 
neados,  was  not  severely  treated,  but  the  provisor,  Esteban  de 
Portillo,  took  it  seriously  and  threw  him  in  prison.  During  the 
trial  Morales  testified  that  Pereyns  had  said  that  he  preferred  to 
paint  portraits  rather  than  images,  which  he  explained  was 
because  they  paid  better.  This  did  not  satisfy  the  provisor 
who  proceeded  to  torture  him  when  he  endured,  without  further 
confession,  three  turns  of  the  cor  deles  and  three  jars  of  water 
trickled  down  his  throat  on  a  linen  cloth.  This  ought  to  have 
earned  his  dismissal  but,  on  December  4th,  he  was  condemned 
to  pay  the  costs  of  his  trial  and  to  give  security  that  he  would 
not  leave  the  city  until  he  should  have  painted  a  picture  of  Our 
Lady  of  Merced,  as  an  altar-piece  for  the  church.  He  complied 
and  it  was  duly  hung  in  the  cathedral.2  A  still  more  forcible 


1  Obregon,  loc.  tit—  Schafer,  Beitrage  zur  Geschichte  der  Spanischen  Protes- 
tantismus,  II,  373. 
1  Obregon,  op.  cit.,  2*  Serie,  p.  61 


EPISCOPAL  INQUISITION  199 

example  of  the  abuse  of  episcopal  inquisitorial  authority  was  the 
case  of  Don  Pedro  Juarez  de  Toledo,  alcalde  mayor  of  Trinidad 
in  Guatemala,  arrested  with  sequestration  of  property  by  his 
bishop,  Bernardino  de  Villalpando,  on  a  charge  of  heresy.  He 
died  in  September,  1569,  with  his  trial  unfinished;  it  was  trans- 
ferred to  the  Inquisition  on  its  establishment  and,  in  the  auto 
de  fe  of  February  28,  1574,  a  sentence  was  rendered  clearing  his 
memory  of  all  infamy,  which  we  are  told  gave  much  satisfaction 
for  he  was  a  man  much  honored  and  the  vindictiveness  of  the 
prosecution  was  notorious.1 

These  inquisitorial  powers,  however,  were  only  enjoyed  tem- 
porarily by  the  bishops  and  when,  in  1570,  a  tribunal  was  finally 
established  in  Mexico,  a  circular  was  addressed  to  them  formally 
warning  them  against  allowing  their  provisors  or  officials  to  exer- 
cise jurisdiction  in  matters  of  faith  and  ordering  them  to  transmit 
to  the  inquisitors  any  evidence  which  they  might  have  or  might 
obtain  in  cases  of  heresy.  The  bishops  apparently  were  unwil- 
ling to  surrender  the  jurisdiction  to  which  they  had  grown 
accustomed,  for  the  command  had  to  be  repeated,  May  26, 
1585.2 

It  is  worthy  of  remark  that  there  seems  to  have  been  no  pressure 
from  Rome  to  extend  the  Inquisition  over  the  New  World. 
St.  Pius  V,  notwithstanding  his  fierce  inquisitorial  activity  in 
Italy,  could  give  Philip  II  the  sanest  and  most  temperate  advice 
about  the  colonies.  On  learning  that  the  king  proposed  to  send 
thither  officials  selected  with  the  utmost  care,  he  wrote,  August  18, 
1568,  to  Inquisitor-general  Espinosa  to  encourage  him  in  the 
good  work.  The  surest  way,  he  says,  to  propagate  the  faith  is  to 
remove  all  unnecessary  burdens  and  to  so  treat  the  people  that 
they  may  rejoice  more  and  more  to  throw  off  the  bonds  of  idolatry 
and  submit  themselves  to  the  sweet  yoke  of  Christ;  the  Christians 
who  go  thither  should  be  such  as  to  edify  the  people  by  their  lives 
and  morals,  so  as  to  confirm  the  converts  and  to  allure  the  heathen 


1  Medina,  op.  cit.,  pp.  35-6. 

2  Solorzani  op.  tit.,  Lib.  in,  cap.  xxiv,  n.  38. 


200  MEXICO 

to  conversion.1  To  do  Philip  justice,  he  earnestly  strove  to  follow 
in  the  path  thus  wisely  indicated,  but  Spanish  maladministration 
was  too  firmly  rooted  for  him  to  succeed.  If  he  could  not  thus 
render  the  faith  attractive  he  could  at  least  preserve  its  purity; 
the  colonists  were  becoming  too  numerous  for  their  aberrations 
to  be  left  to  episcopal  provisors,  overburdened  with  a  multiplicity 
of  other  duties,  and  the  only  safety  lay  in  extending  to  the  colonies 
the  Inquisition  whose  tribunals  would  have  no  other  function. 

The  incentive  to  this,  however,  was  not  so  much  the  danger 
anticipated  from  Judaizing  New  Christians  as  from  the  propaganda 
of  the  Reformers,  who  were  regarded  as  zealously  engaged  in 
sending  to  the  New  World  their  heretical  books  and  versions  of 
Scripture  and  even  as  venturing  there  personally  in  hopes  of  com- 
bining missionary  work  with  the  profits  of  trade.  This  is  the 
motive  alleged  by  Philip  II,  in  his  ce*dulas  of  January  25,  1569, 
and  August  16,  1570,  confirming  the  action  of  Inquisitor-general 
Espinosa  in  founding  the  Mexican  tribunal.2  Leonardo  Donate, 
the  Venetian  envoy,  in  his  report  of  1573,  assents  to  this  as  the 
cause,  not  only  of  the  establishment  of  the  Mexican  Inquisition 
but  also  of  the  prohibition  of  intercourse  with  the  colonies  to 
Germans  and  Flemings,  although  the  latter  were  Spanish  subjects.3 
The  Protestant  missionary  spirit  in  fact  was,  at  this  time,  by  no 
means  as  ardent  as  the  Inquisition  sought  to  make  the  faithful 
believe,  yet  it  could  reasonably  point  in  justification  to  the  num- 
ber of  Protestants  who  furnished  the  material  for  the  earlier 
inquisitorial  activity. 

Although  the  decision  to  establish  colonial  tribunals  was 
reached  and  made  known  in  the  ce*dula  of  January,  1569,  Philip 
proceeded  with  his  usual  dilatory  caution.  It  was  not  until 
January  3, 1570,  that  Espinosa  notified  Doctor  Moya  de  Contreras, 
then  Inquisitor  of  Murcia,  that  he  had  been  selected  as  senior 


1  Bulario  de  la  Orden  de  Santiago,  Lib.  Ill,  fol.  79,  123. 

1  Recop.  de  las  Indias,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  xix,  ley  1. — Cf.  Simancae  de  Catholicis  Insti- 
tutionibue,  Tit.  xxxvm,  n.  12. 
1  Relazioni  Venete,  Serie  I,  Tom.  VI,  p.  462. 


INQ  VISITORS  APPOINTED  201 

inquisitor  of  the  projected  tribunal;  he  was  to  enjoy  a  salary  of 
three  thousand  pesos  and  the  fruits  of  a  prebend  in  the  cathedral ; 
he  was  to  have  a  colleague,  a  fiscal  and  a  notary  or  secretary, 
while  such  other  officials  as  might  be  necessary  would  be  appointed 
on  the  spot,  in  accordance  with  instructions  to  be  given  to  him.1 
Contreras  declined  the  appointment  on  the  ground  of  his  health, 
which  would  not  endure  the  voyage,  and  his  poverty,  for  he  was 
endeavoring  to  place  his  sister  in  a  convent.  Espinosa  insisted, 
pointing  out  that  the  position  would  be  but  temporary  and 
would  lead  to  promotion,  which  was  verified  for,  in  1573,  Con- 
treras became  Archbishop  of  Mexico,  served  for  a  time  as  viceroy, 
and,  on  his  return  to  Spain,  was  made  president  of  the  Council 
of  Indies.2  The  junior  inquisitor  was  the  Licenciado  Pascual  de 
Cervantes,  canon  of  Canaries,  who  was  instructed  to  learn  the 
duties  of  his  office  from  his  experienced  senior.  Their  commis- 
sions bore  date  August  18,  1570,  and  empowered  them  to  evoke 


1  This  and  the  following  details  of  the  installation  of  the  Mexican  Inquisition 
I  owe  to  a  series  of  documents,  copies  of  which  were  kindly  furnished  to  me  by 
the  late  General  Don  Vicente  Riva  Palacio. 

Doctor  Moya  de  Contreras  was  an  old  and  experienced  hand.  In  1541  he  was 
appointed  inquisitor  of  Saragossa. — Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Sala  40, 
Lib.  4,  fol.  117. 

2  Torquemada,  Lib.  xix,  cap.  29.     For  almost  all  the  early  inquisitors  of  Mexico 
the  tribunal  was  the  stepping-stone  to  the  episcopate.     Bonilla,  who  went,  in 
1571,  as  fiscal,  became  inquisitor  in  1573  and  Archbishop  of  Mexico  in  1592. 
Alonso  Granero,  who  went  as  inquisitor  in  1574,  became  Bishop  of  Charcas  the 
same  year.     Santos  Garcia  was  inquisitor  in  1576  and  Bishop  of  Jalisco  in  1597. 
Alonso  de  Peralta,  who  was  inquisitor  in  1594,  was  made  Archbishop  of  La  Plata 
in  1609,  and  Lobo  Guerrero,  who  was  inquisitor  in  1593,  became  Archbishop  of 
Santafe  in  1598. 

It  illustrates  the  character  of  the  men  occupying  these  positions  that  when 
Granero  left  Mexico  for  his  bishopric  he  went  by  land  and  in  Nicaragua  he  assumed 
still  to  be  inquisitor,  condemning  people  and  fining  them  to  defray  his  travelling 
expenses.  An  unlucky  notary  named  Rodrigo  de  Evora  wrote  some  satiric 
couplets  about  him,  whereupon  he  was  thrown  in  prison  with  chains  on  hands 
and  feet,  tortured  till  he  was  crippled  with  dislocated  joints  and  then  exposed  in 
a  public  auto  and  condemned  to  300  lashes  and  six  years  of  galleys.  The  scour- 
ging was  administered  with  excessive  severity  and  Evora  had  to  beg  his  way  to 
Mexico  to  appeal  to  the  tribunal  there.  He  evidently  was  stripped  of  his  property 
and  among  other  things  of  four  cases  of  Chinese  ware,  which  Granero  appropriated 
to  his  own  use. — Medina,  op.  cit.,  76-78. 


202  MEXICO 

and  continue  all  cases  that  might  be  in  the  hands  of  inquisitors 
or  episcopal  officials.  It  was  not  until  November  13th  that  they 
set  sail  from  San  Lucar  for  the  Canaries,  where  they  hoped  to 
take  passage  on  the  fleet.  In  this  they  were  disappointed,  as 
it  did  not  call  at  the  islands,  and  they  were  detained  in  Tenerife 
until  June  2,  1571.  Cervantes  died  on  the  voyage  July  26th 
and  Contreras  was  wrecked  on  the  coast  of  Cuba,  August  llth, 
but  he  found  refuge  on  another  vessel  and  reached  San  Juan  de 
Ulua  August  18th.  He  entered  the  city  of  Mexico  September 
12th,  but  the  ceremonies  of  reception  and  installation  were 
delayed  until  November  4th.1  These  were  of  the  most  impres- 
sive character.  A  proclamation,  two  days  before,  to  sound  of 
drum  and  trumpet,  had  summoned  to  be  present  in  the  cathedral, 
under  pain  of  major  excommunication,  the  whole  population 
over  twelve  years  of  age.  From  the  building  assigned  to  the 
tribunal,  the  viceroy  and  senior  judge  of  the  royal  court,  followed 
by  all  the  officials,  conducted  the  inquisitor  to  the  church,  where, 
after  the  sermon  and  before  the  elevation  of  the  host,  the  secretary 
of  the  Inquisition  read  the  royal  letters  addressed  to  the  viceroy 
and  all  other  officials,  reciting  at  great  length  the  dangers  of  the 
heretic  propaganda  and  commanding  every  one  to  render  all 
aid  and  service  to  the  inquisitors  and  their  officials,  arresting  all 
whom  they  should  designate  and  punishing  with  the  legal  penal- 
ties those  whom  they  should  relax  as  heretics  or  relapsed.  More- 
over the  king  took  under  his  protection  all  those  connected  with 
the  Holy  Office  and  warned  his  subjects  that  any  injury  inflicted 
on  them  would  be  visited  with  the  punishment  due  to  violation  of 
the  royal  safeguard.  Then  an  edict  was  read,  embodying  the 
oath  of  obedience  and  pledging  every  one,  under  fearful  male- 
dictions, spiritual  and  temporal,  to  aid  the  Inquisition  in  every 
way  and  to  denounce  and  persecute  heretics  as  wolves  and  mad 
dogs.  On  this  the  viceroy  arose  and,  placing  his  hand  on  the 
gospels  which  lay  on  a  table,  took  the  oath  and  all  the  officials 
present  advanced  in  procession  and  followed  his  example. 

1  Medina,  op.  cit.,  p.  22. 


INQ  UISITION  ESTABLISHED  203 

The  Inquisition  thus  was  fairly  established  in  the  city  of  Mexico ; 
it  issued  its  Edict  of  Faith  and,  on  November  10th,  it  published 
letters  addressed  to  all  the  inhabitants  of  its  enormous  district, 
stretching  from  the  Atlantic  to  the  Pacific  and  from  Darien  to 
the  unknown  regions  to  the  North,  commanding  them  and  their 
officials  to  take  the  same  portentous  oath  of  obedience.  In  an 
age  of  faith,  it  is  easy  to  see  how  profound  was  the  impression 
made  when  the  population  of  every  parish  and  mission  was  assem- 
bled in  its  church  and  listened  to  such  utterances  in  the  name 
of  Christ  and  the  pope,  with  their  reduplication  of  threats  and 
promises,  and  each  one  was  required  to  raise  his  right  hand  and 
solemnly  swear  on  the  cross  and  the  gospels  to  accept  it  all  and 
obey  it  to  the  letter.1 

As  communication  between  the  tribunal  and  the  Supreme 
Council  in  Madrid  was  slow  and  irregular,  there  was  necessity  that 
it  should  have  greater  independent  authority  than  that  allowed 
to  the  provincial  Inquisitions  in  Spain,  which  at  this  period  were 
constantly  becoming  more  and  more  subject  to  the  central  head. 
Accordingly  it  was  furnished  not  only  with  the  general  Instructions 
current  everywhere  but  with  special  elaborate  ones,  providing 
among  other  matters  that  in  the  consulta  de  fe,  or  meeting  to 
decide  upon  a  sentence,  if  there  should  be  discordia  or  lack  of 
unanimity  among  the  inquisitors  and  the  episcopal  Ordinary  (who 
always  took  part  in  such  matters)  the  case  was  not  referred  to  the 
Suprema,  as  in  Spain,  unless  the  question  was  as  to  relaxation  to 
the  secular  arm;  if  this  was  involved,  the  accused  was  to  be  sent 
to  the  Suprema,  which  decided  his  fate.  If  the  sentence  was  to 
torture  or  reconciliation,  or  a  milder  penance,  then  the  opinion 
prevailed  of  the  two  inquisitors,  or  of  the  Ordinary  and  one  of 
the  inquisitors,  while  if  all  three  were  discordant,  then  the  con- 
suitors  decided  as  to  which  of  the  three  opinions  should  be 
adopted.  Appeals  to  the  Suprema  against  sentences  of  torture, 
or  of  extraordinary  punishments,  were  similarly  replaced  by 
giving  the  prisoner  another  hearing,  allowing  the  fiscal  to  argue 

1  See  Appendix. 


204  MEXICO 

against  him  and  reconsidering  the  sentence  in  the  consulta  de  fe.1 
These  instructions  also  prescribed  the  enforcement  of  the  Index  of 
prohibited  books,  both  as  to  the  suppression  of  those  existing  in 
the  colony  and  the  watchful  supervision  of  imports,  all  of  which 
Doctor  Contreras  hastened  to  execute  by  requiring  every  owner 
of  books  to  present  a  sworn  list  of  those  in  his  possession.  It 
would  not  be  easy,  however,  to  define  whence  he  derived  his 
authority  for  his  next  step,  which  was  to  forbid  the  departure 
from  the  land  of  any  one  without  a  special  licence  from  the  Inqui- 
sition— a  stretch  of  power  which  we  are  told  met  with  the  hearty 
concurrence  of  the  viceroy,  Martin  Enriquez,  who  had  not  other- 
wise manifested  much  prepossession  in  favor  of  the  new  juris- 
diction thus  established  in  his  territories.2 

The  inquisitor  evidently  magnified  his  office  and  the  result 
soon  showed  how  much  more  efficient  was  a  tribunal  of  which 
the  energies  were  concentrated  on  a  single  object,  than  the  desul- 
tory action  of  the  episcopal  provisors.  He  had,  on  his  arrival, 
lost  no  time  in  filling  up  his  staff  by  appointing  an  alguazil  mayor, 
an  alcaide  of  the  secret  prisons,  a  portero  or  apparitor  and  a  mes- 
senger, as  well  as  a  receiver  of  confiscations,  to  whom  he  assigned 
the  handsome  salary  of  six  hundred  ducats,  not  anticipating  how 
slender,  for  some  time,  were  to  be  the  receipts  from  that  source. 
His  efforts  were  seconded  at  home  for,  by  a  carta  orden  of  the 
Suprema,  January  5,  1573,  the  Spanish  tribunals  were  instructed 
to  give  precedence  over  all  other  business  to  requests  from 
colonial  Inquisitions  for  evidence  to  be  taken  and  furnished, 
experience  having  already  shown  the  great  benefit  arising  from 
their  establishment  there.3  The  publication  of  the  Edict  of  Faith 
had  brought  in  many  denunciations;  arrests  were  frequent  and  the 
number  of  prisoners  soon  exceeded  the  capacity  of  the  improvised 


1  Mr.  Elkan  N.  Adler  has  printed  a  translation  of  these  special  instructions 
furnished  to  Peru.     Unquestionably  the  same  provisions  must  have  been  estab- 
lished in  Mexico. — Publications  of  the  American  Jewish  Historical  Society,  No.  12. 

The  inquisitors  were  empowered  to  call  in  the  judges  of  the  Royal  Audiencia 
as  consultors  in  the  consuUa  de  fe. — Ibidem. 

2  Medina,  op,  cit.,  p.  30.  8  Llorente,  Hist,  crft.,  cap.  xix,  art.  ii.  n.  18. 


THE  FIRST  A  UTO  DE  FE  205 

prison — among  them  some  thirty-six  Englishmen,  the  remnant  of 
the  hundred  of  Sir  John  Hawkins's  men  who  had  taken  their 
chances  on  shore  after  the  disaster  at  San  Juan  de  Ulua,  in  1568.  * 
The  fruits  of  this  energy  were  seen  when  the  first  great  auto 
de  fe  was  celebrated  February  28,  1574,  with  a  solemnity 
declared  by  eyewitnesses  to  be  equal  in  everything,  save  the 
presence  of  royalty,  to  that  of  Valladolid,  May  21,  1559,  when 
the  Spanish  Lutherans  suffered.  A  fortnight  in  advance  it 
was  announced  throughout  the  city  with  drums  and  trumpets, 
the  Inquisition  commenced  to  erect  its  staging  and  the  city 
authorities  did  the  like  for  themselves  and  their  wives,  and 
invited  the  judges  and  their  wives  to  seats  on  it.  A  week 
later,  on  learning  that  prominent  officials  from  all  parts  of 
the  country  were  coming,  the  invitation  was  extended  to  them. 
The  population  poured  in  from  all  quarters,  crowding  the  streets 
and  occupying  every  spot  from  which  the  spectacle  could  be  wit- 
nessed. The  night  before  was  occupied  in  drilling,  in  the  court- 
yard of  the  Inquisition,  the  unfortunates  who  were  to  appear  and 
at  daylight  they  were  breakfasted  on  wine  and  slices  of  bread 
fried  in  honey. 

The  accounts  of  the  auto  as  given  by  Sefior  Medina  are  some- 
what confused,  but  from  them  we  gather  that  there  were  seventy- 
four  sufferers  in  all.  Of  these,  three  were  for  asserting  that  simple 
fornication  between  the  unmarried  was  no  sin;  twenty-seven  were 
for  bigamy;  two  for  blasphemy;  one  for  wearing  prohibited  articles 
although  his  grandfather  had  been  burnt;  two  for  "  propositions;" 
one  because  he  had  made  his  wife  confess  to  him  and  thirty-six 
for  Lutheranism,  of  whom  two,  George  Ripley  and  Marin  Cornu 
were  burnt.  These  Lutherans  were  all  foreigners  of  various 
nationalities,  but  mostly  English,  consisting  of  Hawkins's  men. 
One  of  these,  named  Miles  Phillips  has  left  an  account  of  the  affair, 
in  which  he  says  that  his  compatriots  George  Ripley,  Peter  Mom- 
frie  and  Cornelius  the  Irishman  were  burnt,  sixty  or  sixty-one 
were  scourged  and  sent  to  the  galleys  and  seven,  of  whom  he  was 

1  Medina,  op.  cit.,  p.  31. 


206  MEXICO 

one,  were  condemned  to  serve  in  convents;  the  wholesale  scourg- 
ing was  performed  the  next  day,  through  the  accustomed  streets, 
the  culprits  being  preceded  by  a  crier  calling  out  "See  these 
English  Lutheran  dogs,  enemies  of  God!"  while  inquisitors  and 
familiars  shouted  to  the  executioners  "  Harder,  harder,  on  these 
English  Lutherans!"  Paramo,  who  doubtless  had  access  to 
official  records,  tells  us  that  there  were  about  eighty  penitents  in 
all,  of  whom  an  Englishman  and  a  Frenchman  were  burnt,  some 
Judaizers  were  reconciled,  together  with  several  bigamists  and 
practitioners  of  sorcery.  One  of  these  latter,  he  says,  was  a 
woman  who  had  made  her  husband  come  in  two  days  to  Mexico 
from  Guatemala,  two  hundred  leagues  away  and,  when  asked  by 
the  inquisitor  why  she  had  done  this,  she  replied  that  it  was  in 
order  to  enjoy  the  sight  of  his  beauty,  the  fact  being  that  he 
was  the  foulest  of  men.  Bigamy,  he  adds,  was  a  very  frequent 
crime,  for  men  thought  that,  at  so  great  a  distance  from  Spain, 
there  was  little  chance  of  detection.1 

Miles  Phillips  says  that  at  the  conclusion  of  the  auto  the  victims 
relaxed  were  burnt  on  the  plaza,  near  the  staging.  This  shows 
that  no  proper  preparation  had  been  made  for  these  solemnities 
and  in  fact,  it  was  not  until  1596  that  the  municipality,  at  a  cost 
of  four  hundred  pesos,  constructed  a  quemadero  or  burning  place, 
where  concremation  could  be  performed  decently  and  in  order. 
It  was  a  ghastly  adjunct  to  a  pleasure-ground,  for  it  was  situated 
at  the  east  end  of  the  Alameda.  There  it  remained  until  the 
stake  was  growing  obsolete  and  was  removed  in  1771  to  enlarge 
the  promenade.2 

This  was  the  last  inquisitorial  act  of  Doctor  Contreras,  whose 


1  Medina,  op.  cit.,  pp.  36-43. — Obregon,  op.  cit.,  2a  Serie,  84-90,  335-7. — 
Paramo  de  Orig.  Officii  S.  Inquisit.,  p.  241.  The  "Cornelius  the  Irishman"  of 
Miles  Phillips's  narrative  was  not  burnt  until  the  auto  of  March  6,  1575.  He  was 
one  of  Hawkins's  men,  who  had  married  in  Guatemala. — Medina,  p.  51. 

1  Obregon,  p.  391.  In  the  great  auto  of  December  8,  1596,  the  sentence  to 
relaxation  of  Manuel  Dfaz  states  that  he  is  to  be  taken  on  horseback  to  the 
market-place  of  San  Ipolito  where,  in  the  place  provided  for  it,  he  is  to  be  garroted 
and  burnt. — Proceso  contra  Manuel  Dfaz,  fol.  154  (I  owe  to  the  kindness  of 
General  Riva  Palacio  several  of  the  original  trials  connected  with  this  auto). 


ACTIVITY  207 

promotion  to  the  archbishopric  had  already  taken  place.  He 
had  been  provided  with  a  colleague  by  the  promotion  of  the  fiscal 
Bonilla  in  1572,  and  the  vacancy  caused  by  his  retirement  was 
filled  by  the  appointment  of  Alonso  Granero  de  Avalos.  These 
held  an  auto  March  6, 1575,  in  which  there  were  thirty-one  culprits, 
twenty-five  of  them  for  bigamy  and  but  one  Protestant,  the 
Irishman  William  Cornelius,  who  was  burnt.  Less  important 
was  an  auto  celebrated  February  19,  1576,  with  thirteen  culprits, 
all  for  minor  offences,  except  an  Englishman  named  Thomas 
Farrar,  a  shoemaker  long  resident  in  Mexico,  who  was  reconciled 
for  Protestantism.  Another  auto  followed  December  15,  1577, 
in  which,  besides  the  customary  minor  offenders,  three  English- 
men, Paul  Hawkins,  John  Stone  and  Robert  Cook,  were  recon- 
ciled for  Protestantism  and  the  first  Judaizer,  Alvarez  Pliego, 
abjured  de  vehementi  and  was  fined  in  500  pesos.1  The  Judaism 
which  thus  commenced  to  show  itself  speedily  furnished  further 
victims  for,  in  1578,  two  Spaniards  were  burnt  for  it  and,  in  1579, 
another,  Garcia  Gonzalez  Bermejero,  while  a  Frenchman,  Guil- 
laume  Potier,  who  escaped,  was  burnt  in  effigy  for  Calvinism. 
After  this,  until  1590,  the  tribunal  seems  to  have  become  indolent; 
but  few  autos  were  celebrated  and  the  culprits  consisted  of  the 
miscellaneous  bigamists,  blasphemers,  sorcerers  and  soliciting 
confessors,  whose  cases  present  no  especial  interest.  With 
1590  the  yearly  autos  were  resumed.  In  that  year  nine  Juda- 
izers  at  least  were  reconciled,  one  was  burnt  in  person  and  one 
in  effigy.  With  the  advent  of  Alonso  de  Peralta  as  inquisitor, 
in  1594,  the  tribunal  seems  to  have  been  aroused  to  increased 
activity  and  the  auto  of  December  8, 1596,  was  a  memorable  one 
in  which  there  were  sixty-six  penitents,  including  twenty-two 
Judaizers  reconciled,  nine  burnt  in  person  and  ten  in  effigy. 
Even  this  was  exceeded  by  the  great  auto  of  March  26,  1601,  also 
celebrated  by  Peralta,  in  which  there  were  one  hundred  and  twenty 
four  penitents,  of  whom  four  were  burnt  in  person  and  sixteen 
in  effigy.  There  would  seem  to  have  been  a  recrudescence  of 

1  Medina,  op.  tit.,  pp.  49-55 


208  MEXICO 

Protestantism,  for  among  these  were  twenty-three  Lutherans  and 
Calvinists.1 

The  Inquisition  thus  vindicated  the  necessity  of  its  exist- 
ence if  the  land  was  to  be  purified  of  heresy  and  apostasy,  for 
some  of  the  Judaizers  had  been  practising  their  unhallowed  rites 
for  an  incredible  length  of  time.  Garcia  Gonzalez  Bermejero, 
who  was  burnt  in  1579,  had  been  thus  outraging  the  faith  in 
Mexico  for  twenty  years;  Juan  Castellanos,  who  repented  and  was 
reconciled  in  1590,  had  done  so  for  forty-eight  years.  Although 
their  Judaism  was  almost  public,  for  they  ate  the  paschal  lamb 
and  smeared  their  houses  with  blood,  they  were  only  discovered 
through  the  confession  of  an  accomplice  tried  in  Spain,  who 
denounced  Gonzalez.  Of  a  family  of  Portuguese  Jews  who  suf- 
fered in  1592,  and  the  following  years,  we  are  told  that  the  father, 
Francisco  Rodriguez  Mattos,  was  a  rabbi  and  a  dogmatizer,  or 
teacher.  Fortunately  for  him  he  was  dead  and  was  only  burnt 
in  effigy,  as  was  likewise  his  son,  who  escaped  by  flight.  His 
four  daughters  repented  and  were  reconciled.  They  were  in 
high  social  position  and  a  cultured  race,  for  it  is  said  that  the 
youngest,  a  girl  of  seventeen,  could  recite  all  the  psalms  of  David 
and  could  repeat  the  prayer  of  Esther  and  other  Hebrew  songs 
backwards.  A  brother  of  these  girls,  Luis  de  Carvajal,  was 
governor  of  the  province  of  New  Leon  and  a  man  who  had  rend- 
ered essential  service  to  the  crown ;  for  the  crime  of  not  denouncing 
them,  he  was  prosecuted,  publicly  penanced  as  a  fautor  of  heresy 
and  deprived  of  his  office;  he  relapsed,  was  tried  and  tortured  in 
1595  and  was  burnt  in  the  auto  of  December  8,  1596,  together 
with  his  mother  and  three  sisters.2  The  men  who  founded  the 


1  Torquemada,  Lib.  xix,  cap.  30. — Obregon,  pp.  338-52. — Medina,  op.  cit.,  pp. 
91-115,  123-36. 

1  Paramo,  pp.  241-2.— Proceso  contra  Manuel  Diaz,  fol.  71  (MS.  penes  me). — 
Obregon,  p.  344.  The  fourth  sister  of  Carvajal  was  burnt  for  relapse  in  the  auto 
of  1601  and  a  fifth  was  reconciled  (Medina,  pp.  131-133). 

An  incident  of  Carvajal's  trial  illustrates  the  dread  excited  by  the  pitiless 
Peralta,  who  richly  earned  his  archbishopric.  After  prolonged  torture  and  con- 
fession, Carvajal  endeavored  to  commit  suicide  and  then  asked  for  Lobo  Guer- 
rero to  be  sent  for,  to  whom  he  explained  that  he  had  begged  that  Peralta  should 


INDIANS  EXEMPTED  209 

Mexican  Inquisition  knew  their  duty  and  were  resolute  in  its 
performance.  They  were  kept  busy  for,  between  1574  and  1600, 
they  despatched  no  less  than  879  cases,  or  an  average  of  about 
thirty-four  per  annum.1  Considering  the  complex  character  of 
inquisitorial  procedure,  with  its  inevitable  delays  and  consump- 
tion of  time,  this  represents  a  creditable  degree  of  industry,  equal 
to  that  of  the  great  tribunal  of  Toledo  which,  at  the  same  period, 
was  averaging  thirty-five  cases  per  annum. 

It  will  be  observed  that  no  Indians  figure  among  the  victims 
on  these  occasions,  since  the  zeal  of  Bishop  Zumdrraga,  in  1536, 
burned  the  cacique  of  Tezcoco.  In  fact,  the  native  population 
was  exempt  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Inquisition.  This 
exemption  was  originally  attributable  to  the  theory  held  by  the 
Conquistadores  that  the  Indians  were  too  low  in  the  scale  of 
humanity  to  be  capable  of  the  faith — a  theory  largely  relied  upon 
to  excuse  the  cruelties  inflicted  upon  them.  In  1517,  when  Las 
Casas  was  laboring  in  their  behalf  at  the  Spanish  court,  this  propo- 
sition was  advanced  by  a  member  of  the  royal  council  to  Fray 
Reginaldo  Montesino,  who  was  assisting  Las  Casas  and  who 
promptly  declared  it  to  be  heretical.  To  settle  the  question,  he 
asked  one  of  the  foremost  theologians  of  the  time,  Fray  Juan 
Hurtado,  to  assemble  the  doctors  of  the  University  of  Salamanca 
to  decide  the  matter;  thirteen  of  them  debated  it  and  drew  up  a 
series  of  conclusions  which  they  all  signed,  the  final  one  being 
that  whoever  defended  with  pertinacity  such  a  proposition  must 
be  put  to  death  by  fire  as  a  heretic.2  Notwithstanding  this 
decision,  the  theory  was  so  generally  asserted  in  the  New  World 

not  be  present  "because  the  mere  sight  of  him  made  his  flesh  creep,  such  was  the 
terror  with  which  his  rigor  inspired  him." — Adler,  Trial  of  Jorje  de  Almeida 
(Publications  of  Am.  Jewish  Hist.  Soc.,  IV,  42). 

The  complaints  against  Peralta  accumulated  until  the  Suprema  was  compelled 
to  formulate  a  process  against  him  in  which  the  sumaria  contained  thirty-two 
charges,  not  only  of  arbitrary  cruelty  but  of  prostitution  of  his  office  for  illicit 
gain  (Medina,  p.  216);  but  this,  as  we  have  seen,  did  not  prevent  his  promo- 
tion to  the  archiepiscopate  of  La  Plata. 

1  Obregon,  p.  391. 

2  Las  Casas,  Hist,  de  las  Indias,  Lib.  in,  cap.  99  (Col.  de  uocum.,  T.  LXV,  p. 
365). 

14 


210  MEXICO 

that  Fray  Julian  Garce*s,  the  first  Bishop  of  Tlaxcala,  wrote  to 
Paul  III  on  the  subject  and  elicited  a  brief  of  June  2,  1537,  con- 
demning those  who,  to  gratify  their  greed,  asserted  that  the 
Indians  were  like  brutes  to  be  reduced  to  servitude,  and  declaring 
them  competent  to  receive  the  faith  and  enjoy  the  sacraments.1 
Bishop  Zumdrraga  had  already  acted  on  this  presumption  when 
he  burnt  the  cacique  and  this  suggested  an  obstacle,  almost  as 
damaging  as  the  popular  theory,  to  the  conversion  which  was  the 
ostensible  object  of  the  conquest,  for  it  was  evident  that  the 
doctrineros,  or  missionaries,  would  find  their  labors  nugatory  if 
the  Indians  realized  that,  in  embracing  the  new  faith,  they 
would  be  liable  to  death  by  fire  for  aberrations  from  it.  To  re- 
move this  impediment,  Charles  V,  by  a  decree  of  October  15, 1538, 
ordered  that  they  should  not  be  subject  to  the  inquisitorial  pro- 
cess but  that,  in  all  matters  of  faith,  they  should  be  relegated  to 
the  ordinary  jurisdiction  of  their  bishops.  As  the  papal  dele- 
gation of  power  to  the  inquisitors  gave  them  exclusive  faculties 
in  all  cases  of  faith,  this  imperial  rescript  would  have  been 
invalid  without  papal  sanction,  but  this  had  already  been  pro- 
cured in  the  brief  Altitudo  divini  consilii  of  Paul  III,  June  1, 
1537.2 

It  was  probably  through  an  oversight  that  the  commissions 
issued  to  Francisco  Tello  de  Sandoval  in  1543  and  to  Dr.  Contreras 
in  1570  granted  them  jurisdiction  without  exception  over  every 
one,  of  whatever  condition,  quality  or  state;  possibly  the  latter 
may  have  commenced  to  exercise  it  on  the  Indians,  but  the  error 
was  rectified  by  Philip  II,  in  a  decree  of  December  30,  1571, 
ordering  the  inquisitors  to  observe  their  instructions  and  the 
previous  law,  and  the  injunction  had  to  be  repeated  in  1575. 
Moreover,  to  silence  any  objections  as  to  the  episcopal  power, 
he  procured  from  Gregory  XIII  a  brief  granting  full  faculties  to 
the  bishops  to  absolve  the  Indians  for  heresy  and  all  other  reserved 


1  Lorenzana,  Concilios  provin.  de  Mexico,  pp.  18,  33. 
•  Ibidem,  p.  82. 


INDIANS  EXEMPTED  211 

cases.1  The  Indians  thus  remained  exempt  from  prosecution  by 
the  Inquisition — an  exemption  popularly  attributed  to  their  not 
being  gente  de  razon,  or  not  rational  enough  to  be  responsible — 
which  libel  on  their  intellect  Las  Casas  considers  as  perhaps  the 
worst  of  the  many  offences  committed  upon  them.2  They  could, 
however,  endure  this  philosophically  so  long  as  it  exempted  them 
from  the  Holy  Office  and  confided  them  to  the  more  temperate 
zeal  of  the  bishops.3 


1  Recop.  de  las  Indias,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  xix,  ley  17;  Lib.  vi,  Tit.  i,  ley  3'5. — Solorzani 
de  Indiar.  Gubern.,  Lib.  in,  cap.  xxiv,  n.  27,  30. 

This  fresh  papal  grant  was  evidently  called  for  by  the  action  of  the  Council  of 
Trent,  in  1563  (Sess.  xxiv,  De  Reform.,  cap.  6)  which  admitted  that  bishops  had 
only  power  to  absolve  for  secret  heresy,  while  even  this  was  denied  them  by  the 
bulls  In  Ccena  Domini  of  Pius  V  and  his  successors. 

2  Bancroft,  History  of  Mexico,  III,  747,  750. — Las  Casas,  Hist,  de  las  Indias, 
Lib.  n,  cap.  1;  Lib.  in,  cap.  8  (Col.  de  Doc.,  Tom.  LXIV,  7,  386). 

3  The  Dominican  Thomas   Gage  when,  about  the  year  1630,  he  was  serving 
as  a  missionary  priest  at  Mixco  in  Guatemala,  discovered,  after  considerable 
trouble,  an  idol  in  a  cave,  secretly  worshipped  by  the  leading  Indians  of  the 
vicinage.     After  relating  his  adventures  in  the  search,  he  proceeds  "I  writ  to  the 
President  of  Guatemala  informing  him  of  what  I  had  don  and  to  the  Bishop 
(as  an  Inquisitor  to  whom  such  cases  of  Idolatry  did  belong)  to  be  informed  of 
him  what  course  I  should  take  with  the  Indians,  who  were  but  in  part  as  yet 
discovered  unto  me  and  those  only  by  the  relation  of  one  Indian.     From  both  I 
received  great  thanks  for  my  pains  in  searching  the  mountains  and  rinding  the 
Idol  and  for  my  zeal  in  burning  of  it.     And  as  touching  the  Indian  Idolators  their 
counsel  unto  me  was  that  I  should  further  enquire  after  the  rest  and  discover  as 
many  as  I  could  and  endeavor  to  convert  them  to  the  knowledge  of  the  true  God 
by  fair  and  sweet  means,  showing  pity  unto  them  for  their  great  blindness  and 
promising  them  upon  their  repentance  pardon  from  the  Inquisition,  which  con- 
sidering them  to  be  but  new  plants  useth  not  such  rigor  with  them,  which  it 
useth  with  Spaniards  if  they  fall  into  such  horrible  sins." — Gage's  New  Survey 
of  the  West  Indies,  pp.  397-8  (London,  1677). 

For  a  considerable  time  the  Indians  seem  to  have  escaped  persecution,  but  at 
length  the  bishops — or  at  least  some  of  them — formed  Inquisitions  for  them  and 
conducted  these  in  inquisitorial  fashion.  In  1690  the  Bishop  of  Oaxaca,  having 
discovered  organized  idolatry  in  eleven  pueblos  of  the  Sierra  de  Xuquil,  held  an 
auto  in  which  the  culprits  were  reconciled  and  penanced,  twenty-six  of  the  prin- 
cipal ones  being  condemned  to  perpetual  prison,  for  which  he  constructed  an 
appropriate  building.  Possibly  the  fact  that  persecution  was  unprofitable  may 
explain  the  infrequency  of  these  proceedings.  The  first  Indian  auto  in  the  city 
of  Mexico  seems  to  have  been  held  December  23,  1731,  which  was  followed  occa- 
sionally by  others — bigamy,  superstitions  and  idolatry  being  the  common  offences. 
In  1769  the  Archbishop  of  Mexico  published  an  Edict  of  Faith  requiring  denun- 


212  MEXICO 

While  the  Inquisition,  as  we  have  seen,  maintained  its  awful 
dignity  before  the  people,  by  the  solemnity  of  its  public  functions 
and  its  severity  towards  the  evil-minded,  all  was  not  entirely 
serene  within  its  walls.  In  fact,  its  financial  history  illustrates 
so  vividly  some  of  the  aspects  of  Spanish  colonial  administration 
that  it  is  worth  recounting  in  some  detail.  We  have  seen  that 
Inquisitor  Contreras  was  promised  a  salary  of  three  thousand 
pesos  and  a  prebend  in  the  cathedral,  but  he  was  confronted  with 
a  decree  of  January  25,  1569,  prescribing  that  the  income  of  all 
benefices  enjoyed  by  inquisitors  and  fiscals  in  the  Indies  was  to 
be  deducted  from  their  salaries,  and  the  retention  of  this  provision 
in  the  Recopilacion  shows  that  it  was  not  of  mere  temporary 
validity.1  It  was  doubtless  however  waived  in  favor  of  the 
Inquisition,  as  was  likewise  another  question  which  speedily 
arose. 

The  tribunal  was  expected  to  become  self-supporting,  from 
confiscations,  fines  and  pecuniary  penances,  but  this  required 
time  and  meanwhile  Philip  granted  it  a  subvention  from  the  royal 
treasury,  to  continue  during  his  pleasure,  of  10,000  pesos  per 
annum,  being  3000  each  for  two  inquisitors  and  a  fiscal  and  1000 
for  a  notary.  Although  the  tribunal  started  with  but  one  inquisi- 
tor, the  thrifty  receiver,  or  treasurer,  collected  the  salaries  of  two 
and,  when  called  to  account,  claimed  that  he  spent  the  money 
on  the  maintenance  of  poor  prisoners.  The  treasury  officials 
had  no  authority  to  allow  this  and  refused  further  disbursements 
till  the  amount  was  made  good  but,  when  Philip  was  appealed  to, 
he  ordered,  by  a  cSdula  of  December  23,  1574,  the  receiver's 
claim  to  be  allowed.2  Thus  early  began  the  long-continued  bick- 
ering between  the  Holy  Office  and  the  treasury,  which  Philip 
had  already,  in  1572,  endeavored  to  quiet  by  instructing  the 
inquisitors  to  obtain  their  salaries  direct  from  the  viceroy  and 

ciations  of  Indian  practices  to  his  Tribunal  de  Fe.  This  excited  the  indignation 
of  the  Inquisitors  who  vainly  demanded  its  suppression  and  then  appealed  to 
the  Supreraa,  probably  with  no  better  success. — Medina,  pp.  371-8 

1  Recop.  de  las  Indias,  Lib.  I,  Tit.  xix,  ley  26. 

1  Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  40,  fol.  24;  Libro  926,  fol.  169. 


POVERTY  OF  THE  TRIBUNAL  213 

not  from  subordinates,  whom  he  forbade  them  to  prosecute  or 
excommunicate  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing  their  demands.1 

While  Philip  had  provided  liberally  for  the  superior  officials, 
he  had  taken  no  thought  of  the  minor  positions  and,  in  spite  of 
the  solemnity  of  the  autos  de  fe  and  the  successful  persecution  of 
heresy,  the  internal  working  of  the  tribunal  was  pursued  under 
difficulties,  in  the  absence  of  resources  from  confiscations.  A 
curious  insight  into  these  troubles  is  afforded  by  some  corre- 
spondence of  1583  with  Inquisitor-general  Quiroga  by  the  two 
inquisitors,  Santos  Garcia  and  Bonilla.  It  seems  that  their 
portero  or  apparitor,  Pedro  de  Fonseca,  had  exhibited  to  them  a 
commission,  which  he  had  secretly  obtained  from  Quiroga,  pro- 
moting him  to  the  post  of  notary  of  sequestrations.  They  met 
this  piece  of  jobbery  with  the  favorite  inquisitorial  formula — 
obedecer  y  no  cumplir,  obeying  without  executing — for  they  say 
they  obeyed  it  without  admitting  him  to  the  office  until  they 
could  consult  the  cardinal.  This  notariate,  they  say,  is  the 
least  necessary  of  offices,  as  there  are  no  sequestrations  or 
confiscations,  and  they  have  no  other  portero  and  no  money 
wherewith  to  pay  a  substitute:  besides,  Pedro  is  destitute  of  all 
qualifications  for  the  position.  If  a  good  salary  could  be  assured, 
proper  persons  would  apply  for  the  position  but,  in  the  absence  of 
salaries,  the  offices  have  not  a  good  reputation  and  people  say 
they  are  bestowed  on  any  one  who  will  accept  them.  In  view 
of  the  poverty  of  the  tribunal  and  small  prospect  of  improvement 
they  repeat  what  they  had  previously  said  that,  if  the  king  will 
not  provide  for  it,  it  had  better  be  abolished  rather  than  main- 
tained precariously,  with  the  officers  relying  on  the  hope  of  confis- 
cations that  never  come,  so  that  one  resigns  today  and  another 
tomorrow,  leaving  only  the  alcaide  and  portero,  who  are  so  poor 
that  they  would  also  have  gone  if  they  saw  other  means  of  escap- 
ing their  creditors.  It  is  therefore  suggested  that,  in  addition 
to  the  two  inquisitors,  the  fiscal  and  the  notary,  salaries  be 
furnished  of  600  ducats  for  an  alguazil,  500  for  an  alcaide  or 

1  Solorzani  de  Indiar.  Gubern.,  Lib.  in,  cap.  xxiv,  n.  13. 


214  MEXICO 

gaoler  and  400  for  a  messenger — or  otherwise  that,  as  in  Spain, 
a  canonry  be  suppressed  for  the  benefit  of  the  Inquisition,  in 
each  of  the  eleven  bishoprics  of  the  district,  though  this  would 
have  its  disadvantages  in  view  of  the  poverty  of  the  churches  and 
paucity  of  ministers.  Then,  in  another  letter  the  inquisitors 
announce  that  they  have  filled  the  vacant  post  of  alguazil  by 
appointing  Don  Pedro  de  Villegas,  for  whom  they  ask  Quiroga 
to  send  a  commission;  it  is  true,  they  say,  that  he  is  too  young, 
but  then  both  he  and  his  wife  are  limpio — free  from  any  taint  of 
heretic  blood — and  he  has  the  indispensable  qualification  of  pos- 
sessing means  to  live  on  without  a  salary  and  that,  in  the  present 
condition  of  the  Inquisition,  is  the  main  thing  to  be  considered.1 

It  is  an  emphatic  testimony  to  the  exhaustion  of  the  royal 
treasury  that  so  pious  a  monarch  as  Philip  II  should  have  shown 
indifference  to  this  deplorable  condition  of  a  tribunal  which  had 
already  given  evidence  so  conspicious  of  its  services  to  the  faith, 
but  he  remained  deaf  to  all  appeals  and  it  was  left  to  struggle  on 
as  best  it  could.  As  the  number  of  its  reconciled  penitents  in- 
creased it  felt  the  need  of  a  carcel  perpetua  or  penitential  prison, 
for  their  confinement  and,  having  no  funds  wherewith  to  purchase 
a  building,  it  besieged  the  Marquis  of  Monterey,  the  viceroy,  for  an 
appropriation.  In  1596  he  yielded  in  so  far  as  to  authorize  the 
treasurer  to  lend  the  tribunal  2000  pesos,  on  its  giving  security 
to  return  the  money  in  case  the  royal  approbation  should  not  be 
had  within  two  years.  The  term  elapsed  without  it,  but  Philip 
III,  September  13,  1599,  graciously  approved  the  expenditure, 
at  the  same  time  warning  the  viceroy  not  to  repeat  such  liber- 
ality without  previous  permission.2  Even  though  the  monarchs 
were  thus  niggardly,  there  were  advantages  in  serving  the  Inqui- 
sition which  in  many  cases  answered  in  lieu  of  salary,  for  official 
position  conferred  the  fuero  or  right  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
Inquisition  as  well  as  substantial  exemptions.  As  early  as  1572, 
Philip  II  decreed  that,  during  the  royal  pleasure,  the  inquisitors, 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Leg.  1157,  fol.  66. 
'  Ibidem,  Libra  40,  fol.  31. 


INDIAN  EEPARTIMIENTOS  215 

the  fiscal,  the  judge  of  confiscations,  one  secretary,  one  receiver, 
one  messenger  and  the  alcaide  of  the  secret  prison  should  be 
exempt  from  taxation  and  the  royal  officials  were  ordered,  under 
penalty  of  a  thousand  ducats  and  punishment  at  the  king's 
pleasure,  to  observe  this  and  protect  them  in  all  the  honors  and 
exemptions  which  such  officials  enjoyed  in  Spain.1 

A  further,  although  illegal,  relief  was  found  by  sharing  in  the 
repartimientos  under  which  the  Indians  were  allotted  to  Span- 
iards who  lived  upon  their  enforced  labor.  It  is  to  this  cruel 
system  that  Las  Casas,  Mendieta  and  Torquemada  attribute  the 
rapid  wasting  away  of  the  natives  and  the  hatred  which  they 
bore  to  the  Spaniards.  Among  other  attempts  to  diminish  the 
evils  arising  from  the  system,  repeated  laws  of  1530,  1532,  1542, 
1551  and  1563  prohibited  the  allotment  of  Indians  to  any  offi- 
cials or  to  prelates,  clerics,  religious  houses,  hospitals,  fraternities, 
etc.  In  spite  of  this,  as  soon  as  the  Inquisition  was  established, 
it  claimed  and  was  allowed  its  quota  in  the  allotments.  It 
watched  vigilantly,  moreover,  to  see  that  it  was  not  defrauded 
in  any  way,  for  one  of  its  earliest  recorded  acts,  in  1572,  was 
the  prosecution  of  Diego  de  Molina,  the  repartidor  de  los  Indios 
of  San  Juan,  because,  in  allotting  the  Indians  of  that  place,  the 
twelve  assigned  to  the  Inquisition  proved  to  be  boys  and  incapa- 
bles,  while  the  useful  ones,  who  could  be  hired  out  advantageously, 
such  as  carpenters  and  masons,  he  gave  for  bribes  to  others.  He 
was  mercifully  let  off  with  five  days'  imprisonment  and  a  forcible 
warning  and  doubtless  served  as  a  wholesome  example  to  other 
parti tioners.2  Like  most  of  ^the  salutary  legislation  of  Spain,  it 
seems  to  have  been  impossible  to  enforce  the  prohibition,  and  that 
the  Inquisition  continued  to  enjoy  the  unpaid  service  of  Indian 


1  Recop.,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  xix,  ley  14.  In  1626,  however,  Philip  IV  ordered  them  to 
be  compelled  to  pay  the  alcavala  or  commutation  of  the  tax  of  ten  per  cent,  on 
all  transactions  like  other  subjects  and,  in  the  Concordia  of  1633,  the  exemption 
from  royal  taxes  and  imposts  was  wholly  withdrawn. — Ibidem,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  xir, 
Ieyesl5;30,  §  5. 

2  MSS.  of  Royal  Library  of  Munich,  Cod.  Hispan  79,  Leg.  1,  fol.  1. 


216  MEXICO 

serfs  is  manifested  by  its  being  specifically  included  in  subsequent 
repetitions  of  the  law  in  1609,  1627  and  1635.1 

When,  as  we  have  seen,  the  Judaizers  commenced  to  appear 
among  the  penitents  in  the  autos  de  fe,  the  longed-for  relief  deri- 
vable from  confiscations,  fines  and  penances  was  at  hand.  Spanish 
finance  was  already  suffering  the  distress  which  was  to  become 
so  acute  and  the  treasury  naturally  looked  to  find  its  burden 
lightened  by  the  income  from  these  sources.  It  looked  in  vain, 
for  whatever  the  tribunal  acquired  from  its  victims  it  retained 
and  it  persisted,  with  incredible  audacity,  in  refusing  even  to 
render  an  account,  although  the  confiscations  belonged  to  the 
crown  which  never  renounced  its  claim  to  them.  In  1618  a 
royal  ce*dula  required  the  receiver  to  render  itemized  statements 
of  all  receipts  and  expenditures;  in  1621  Philip  IV  sought  to 
enforce  this  by  ordering  his  viceroys  in  the  Indies  not  to  pay 
salaries  until  proof  should  be  furnished  that  the  confiscations 
were  insufficient  to  meet  them  in  whole  or  in  part,  and  this  was 
to  be  observed  inviolably,  no  matter  what  urgency  there  might 
be,  but  repetitions  of  the  decree,  in  1624  and  1629,  show  how 
completely  it  was  ignored.2  Not  the  slightest  attention  was 
paid  to  these  repeated  royal  commands  and,  to  the  last,  the 
Inquisition  never  permitted  either  the  king  or  the  Council  of 
Indies  to  know  what  it  acquired  in  this  manner,  although  the 
sums  were  large  and  the  tribunal  became  wealthy  through  invest- 
ments of  the  surplus,  besides  making,  with  more  or  less  regularity, 
very  considerable  remittances  to  the  Suprema. 

Finding  himself  thus  baffled  by  the  immovable  resistance  of  the 
Holy  Office,  Philip,  in  1627,  sought  to  relieve  his  treasury  by 
despoiling  the  Church.  He  reported  to  Urban  VIII  that  he 
expended  32,000  ducats  a  year  on  the  tribunals  of  Mexico,  Lima 
and  Cartagena,  wherefore  he  prayed  that  the  bull  of  Paul  IV, 
January  7,  1559,  suppressing  a  prebend  in  every  cathedral  and 


1  Recop.,  Lib.  in,  Tit.  xii,  ley  42. 

*  Recop.,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  xix,  leyes  10,  11,  12. — Solorzani  de  Ind.  Gubern.,  Lib.  in, 
cap.  xxiv,  n.  11 


SUPPRESSED  PREBENDS  217 

collegial  church  in  Spain,  for  the  benefit  of  the  Inquisition,  might 
be  extended  to  the  Indies.  Urban  complied  in  a  brief  of  March 
10,  1627,  whereupon  Philip  ordered  the  archbishop  and  bishops 
to  remit  to  the  senior  inquisitors  of  their  respective  tribunals 
the  fruits  of  the  prebends  as  they  should  fall  in,  furnishing,  at 
the  same  time,  to  the  royal  officials  a  statement  of  the  sums 
thus  paid,  so  that  the  amount  should  be  deducted  from  the 
salaries.1  Receipts  from  this  source  commenced  at  once  and 
went  on  increasing  as  vacancies  occurred,  amounting,  according 
to  the  estimate  of  the  Council  of  Indies,  to  30,000  pesos  per 
annum  for  the  three  tribunals,  while  the  Suprema  admitted  that 
those  of  Mexico  and  Lima  produced  about  11,000  pesos  each,  but 
those  of  Cartagena,  it  said,  yielded  only  about  5000.2 

During  this  time  there  had  been  frequent  collisions  between 
the  inquisitors  and  the  treasury  officials,  arising  from  the  refusal 
of  the  former  to  reveal  the  amount  of  the  confiscations  and 
penances  and  the  obedience,  more  or  less  persistent,  of  the  latter 
to  the  royal  commands  to  require  such  statements  as  a  condition 
precedent  to  paying  the  royal  subvention.  In  these  collisions 
the  inquisitors  enforced  their  demands  as  usual  by  prosecution 
and  excommunication,  giving  rise  to  unseemly  controversies 


1  Recop.,  Lib.  I,  Tit.  xix,  leyes  24,  25.     In  the  earlier  period  of  the  colonial 
Inquisition,  the  inquisitors  sometimes,  as  we  have  seen,  held  prebends  in  addition 
to  their  salaries,  but  this  privilege  was  subsequently  withdrawn,  at  the  instance 
of  the  Council  of  Indies,  on  account  of  the  poverty  of  the  churches. — Solorzani, 
op.  cit.,  Lib.  in,  cap.  xxiv,  n.  78. 

2  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  40,  fol.  54,  128,  139. 

The  canonries  fell  in  gradually.  October  24,  1636,  the  Suprema  reports  that 
up  to  that  time,  only  those  of  Mexico,  Puebla,  Oaxaca  and  Guatemala,  had  become 
available,  the  aggregate  revenues  of  which  did  not  amount  to  the  royal  subvention. 
The  tribunal  had  reported,  January  23d,  that  a  vacancy  had  occurred  in  the 
cathedral  of  Guadalajara  and  the  king  is  urged  to  lose  no  time  in  ordering  its 
suppression. — Ibidem,  Lib.  21,  fol.  67. 

About  the  middle  of  the  century  the  tribunal  enjoyed  canonries  in  Mexico, 
Puebla,  Oaxaca,  Chiapa,  Yucatan,  Guatemala,  Mechoacan,  Guadalajara  and 
Manila.  In  Mexico  the  sees  of  Guadiana,  Honduras  and  Nicaragua,  and  in  the 
Philippines  those  of  Cebu,  Cagayan  and  Nueva  Segovia  were  too  poor,  some  of 
them  not  even  having  prebendaries,  and  the  bishops  were  supported  by  the 
treasury. — Medina,  p.  209, 


218  MEXICO 

and,  when  the  Suprema  forbade  their  use  of  such  measures,  they 
were  reduced  to  impotence.  In  a  letter  of  February  13,  1634, 
they  complained  bitterly  of  this;  during  1633,  they  said,  in  spite 
of  all  their  efforts,  they  received  no  money  until  October,  after 
all  the  royal  officials  had  been  paid  and,  as  they  had  no  other 
means  of  support,  they  were  exposed  to  the  deepest  humiliations.1 
The  suppressed  canonries,  however,  introduced  an  element  of 
pacification  and,  in  the  Concordia  of  1633,  between  the  Suprema 
and  the  Council  of  Indies,  a  plan  to  harmonize  differences  was 
agreed  upon  which  was  a  practical  surrender  to  the  Inquisition. 
It  provided  that  every  year,  before  the  first  tercios  (four  months' 
instalments  in  advance)  were  paid,  the  receivers  should  render 
a  sworn  itemized  statement  of  all  receipts  and  expenditures, 
including  confiscations,  fines  and  penances,  in  accordance  with 
the  royal  ce*dulas  and,  when  this  was  delivered  to  the  viceroy,  the 
tercios  should  be  paid  in  advance  without  delay.  If  the  treasury 
officials  should  take  exception  to  any  portion  of  the  statement, 
they  were  to  forward  it  with  their  comments  to  the  Council  of 
Indies,  but  this  was  not  to  interfere  with  the  prompt  payment 
of  the  salaries  and  the  inquisitors  were  to  furnish  the  Suprema 
with  their  explanations.  If  the  statement  should  show  a  surplus 
applicable  to  the  salaries,  this  was,  if  agreed  to  by  both  parties, 
to  be  deducted  from  the  second  tercio;  but  if  the  inquisitors 
presented  any  reasons  why  this  tercio  should  be  paid  in  full,  the 
treasury  should  pay  it  and  the  question  be  referred  for  settlement 
to  the  two  Councils.  The  inquisitors  were  not  to  proceed  against 
the  treasury  officials  with  censures  or  fines  or  other  penalties, 
but  were  to  apply  to  the  viceroy,  to  whom  positive  instructions 
were  sent  to  pay  them  punctually,  both  the  arrearages  then  unpaid 
and  the  current  salaries,  while  any  fines  or  penalties  that  had  been 
imposed  were  to  be  withdrawn  or,  if  collected,  to  be  refunded.2 
This  elaborate  arrangement  is  only  of  importance  as  showing 


1  MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr. 

2  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  40,  fol.  44. — Recop.,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  xix, 
ley  30,  §  1. 


THE  ROYAL  SUB VENTION  219 

that,  in  spite  of  the  suppressed  canonries,  the  treasury  was  still 
required  to  support  the  tribunal  and  that  the  latter  could  be 
bound  by  no  agreements  however  solemnly  entered  into.  Except 
at  Cartagena  it  was  never  carried  into  effect.  No  statement  of 
receipts  was  ever  rendered.  In  1651,  Count  Alva  de  Aliste,  the 
viceroy,  reported  to  Philip  IV  that  he  had  no  means  of  learning 
what  the  confiscations  amounted  to  but,  on  cautiously  sounding 
the  inquisitors,  they  told  him  that  they  reported  them  to  the 
Suprema  and  would  obey  its  instructions.  They  might  well 
keep  the  facts  secret.  In  the  exterminating  persecution  of  the 
wealthy  New  Christians,  during  the  decade  1640-50,  of  which 
more  hereafter,  the  confiscations  were  very  large,  placing  the 
tribunal  at  its  ease  for  all  future  time,  besides  what  was  embezzled 
by  the  inquisitors.  The  auto  of  1646  yielded  38,732  pesos;  that 
of  1647,  148,562.  What  was  gathered  in  two  autos  held  in  1648 
does  not  appear,  but  between  November  20,  1646,  and  April  24, 
1648,  the  inquisitors  remitted  234,000  pesos  in  bills  of  exchange 
while  the  crowning  auto  of  1649  furnished  three  millions  more.1 
In  spite  of  this  enormous  influx  of  wealth,  the  Inquisition  still 
maintained  its  grip  on  the  royal  subvention  of  10,000  pesos  per 
annum,  though  for  how  long  it  is  impossible  to  determine  with 
positiveness.  In  the  prolonged  controversy  which  raged  between 
the  Suprema  and  the  Council  of  Indies  over  the  relations  of  the 
colonial  tribunals,  the  former,  in  1667,  positively  declared  that, 
after  1633,  there  had  been  no  subvention  paid  in  Mexico  or  Lima 
and  this  assertion  was  repeated  in  1676,  but  the  statements  of 
the  Suprema  are  so  full  of  duplicity  that  no  reliance  can  be  reposed 
in  them.2  On  the  other  hand,  in  1668,  we  find  the  Council  of 
Indies  earnestly  advising  the  king  to  withdraw  the  subvention 
on  the  ground  that  the  tribunals  were  rich  and  could  support 


1  Medina,  p.  209. 

2  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  40,  fol.  85,  139.     In  these  papers  the 
Suprema  had  the  hardihood  to  assert  that  the  prebends  were  suppressed  in  order 
to  enable  the  tribunals  to  meet  expenses  over  and  above  the  royal  subvention  for 
salaries,  although  all  the  documents  show  that  the  object  was  to  relieve  the 
treasury. 


220  MEXICO 

themselves,  as  they  do  in  Castile;  in  1675  it  speaks  of  the  pay- 
ments as  still  continuing  and  urges  their  discontinuance  without 
consulting  the  Suprema,  as  it  is  a  matter  wholly  within  the  control 
of  the  treasury  and,  in  1676,  Carlos  II  answered  the  Suprema 
by  demanding  a  prompt  decision  as  to  a  proposition  made  by 
the  Council  of  Indies  to  discontinue  the  subventions  enjoyed  by 
the  three  tribunals  for  the  salaries  of  their  officials.1  When  they 
were  definitely  discontinued  it  would  be  impossible  to  assert,  but 
it  is  probable  that  those  of  Mexico  and  Lima  were  stopped  in 
1677,  while  that  of  Cartagena  was  prolonged  even  later.  In  1683 
Inquisitor  Valera  of  that  tribunal  complained  that,  owing  to  the 
exhaustion  of  the  public  treasury  through  wars  and  piratical 
attacks,  an  arrearage  had  accumulated  of  thirty-three  tercios.  He 
claimed  that  the  king  was  indebted  to  the  tribunal  in  the  sum  of 
58,000  pesos  and  he  urged  its  transfer  to  Santa  Fe,  where  the 
royal  treasury  was  in  better  condition  to  meet  the  obligation. 
The  transfer  was  not  made,  payments  of  the  subvention  became 
more  and  more  irregular  and  we  shall  see  that  in  1706  the 
tribunal  was  still  unavailingly  endeavoring  to  enforce  them.2 

In  a  letter  to  the  king,  July  31,  1651,  the  viceroy,  Alva  de 
Aliste,  took  the  ground  that  the  subvention  had  been  merely 
a  loan,  to  be  repaid  when  confiscations  should  come  in,  and  as, 
within  the  last  few  years,  these  had  been  large  enough  to  settle 
the  debt,  he  had  had  the  accounts  examined  and  had  found  that, 
since  the  beginning,  there  had  been  advanced  for  salaries  559,189 
pesos,  6  tomiries  and  5  granos  and,  for  other  purposes,  6837 
pesos,  5  granos,  wherefore  he  suggested  that  the  king  should 
compel  restitution  of  this  amount.3  To  a  treasury  so  desperately 
embarrassed  as  that  of  Spain  the  prospect  of  such  relief  was  most 
welcome.  Philip  referred  the  viceroy's  letter  to  the  Council  of 
Indies,  which  delayed  its  reply  till  December  12,  1652,  when  it 
advised  the  king  that  examination  showed  that  the  salaries  were 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  40,  fol.  91,  103. 
a  J.  T.  Medina,  La  Inquisicion  en  Cartagena  de  Indias,  p.  310  (Santiago  de 
Chile,  1899). 
'  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Legajo  1465,  fol.  78. 


THE  ROYAL  SUB VENTION  221 

to  be  defrayed  by  the  confiscations,  which  were  to  be  reported  to 
the  treasury.  The  only  light  that  could  be  thrown  upon  the 
subject  was  to  be  sought  in  the  registration,  by  the  Contratacion 
of  Seville,  of  the  amounts  of  silver  passing  through  it  from  Mexico 
and  Peru  and  from  these  registers  it  appeared  that  the  colonial 
tribunals  had  remitted  to  the  Suprema  the  aggregate  of  76,965 
pesos  de  ensayados  and  85,454  pesos  de  a  ocho,  thus  showing  that 
those  tribunals  had  revenues  largely  in  advance  of  their  needs. 
In  view  of  the  magnitude  of  the  sums  furnished  by  the  treasury, 
the  extensive  confiscations,  the  income  of  the  suppressed  canonries 
and  the  dire  necessities  of  the  royal  finances,  it  therefore  advised 
the  king  to  call  upon  the  Suprema  for  restitution  and  to  furnish 
statements  of  the  amount  of  the  confiscations  from  the  beginning. 
To  this  the  king  replied,  in  the  ordinary  formula  of  approval 
"It  is  well  and  so  have  I  ordered/'1  When  the  Suprema  was 
concerned,  however,  obedience  by  no  means  followed  royal  orders 
and  so  it  proved  in  this  case. 

Philip's  weakness  was  shown  in  his  next  despatch  to  the  viceroy, 
February  1,  1653,  in  which  he  said  that  he  had  determined  that 
the  Suprema  should  arrange  to  make  restitution  and  that,  to 
facilitate  a  proper  adjustment  of  the  matter,  it  should  furnish  a 
statement  of  all  confiscations  from  the  beginning,  "for  neither 
my  Council  of  Indies  nor  my  viceroys  have  been  able  to  obtain 
this,  but  only  the  records  of  the  shipments  of  silver  from  the 
Indies/'2  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Suprema  made  any 
attempt  to  obey  the  royal  commands  or  that  it  paid  any  attention 
to  a  reiterated  demand  made  on  August  12,  1655.  Then  the 
effort  seems  to  have  been  abandoned  and  the  matter  was  allowed 
to  slumber  until  attention  was  called  to  it  again  in  1666.  Philip 
had  written,  August  12,  1665,  to  the  Marquis  of  Mansera,  then 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Libro  40,  fol.  57. 

2  Ibidem,  fol.  74. 

The  Contratacion  could  furnish  only  the  records  of  silver  passing  through  it, 
which  were  always  liable  to  seizure  by  the  king.  The  great  remittances  of  1646 
and  1648  were  cautiously  made  in  bills  of  exchange,  and  this  was  probably  the 
rule. 


222  MEXICO 

Mexican  viceroy,  urging  him  to  extinguish  the  debt  of  1,333,264 
pesos,  by  which  amount  the  Mexican  treasury  was  in  arrears 
with  its  payments.  The  viceroy  replied,  September  5,  1666, 
pointing  out  the  difficulty  of  accomplishing  this  and,  at  the  same 
time,  keeping  up  the  remittances  by  the  fleet,  which  were  impera- 
tively required  by  the  absolute  needs  of  the  monarchy.  He 
added  that  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  the  indebtedness  was  the 
large  sums  withdrawn  from  it  by  the  salaries  and  expenses  of  the 
Inquisition  since  its  foundation  in  1570;  this  had  been  intended 
as  a  loan,  until  it  could  be  repaid  from  the  confiscations,  fines 
and  penances  but,  although  these  had  been  large,  restitution 
had  never  been  made.  The  cedula  of  1653  had  inferred  that  the 
matter  would  be  settled  between  the  two  councils  and  therefore 
the  viceroys  were  powerless,  but  he  suggested  that  the  tribunal 
was  rich  and  held  large  amounts  of  property ;  it  had  the  disposition, 
which  it  might  not  have  in  future,  to  commence  making  this 
just  and  long  overdue  payment.  This  despatch  the  Council  of 
Indies  reported  to  the  queen-regent,  together  with  copies  of  the 
royal  cedulas  of  1653  and  1655,  in  order  that  she  might  compel  the 
Suprema  to  make  restitution,  not  only  of  the  sums  reported  by 
Count  Alva  de  Aliste,  but  of  what  had  since  been  paid  to  the  tribu- 
nal, seeing  that  it  had  the  means  to  do  so  and  was  remitting  such 
large  amounts  to  the  Suprema.1 

It  is  scarce  worth  while  to  follow  in  detail  the  discussion  which 
ensued,  lasting,  with  true  Spanish  procrastination,  until  1677, 
when  the  effort  to  make  the  Inquisition  refund  seems  to  have 
been  abandoned  out  of  sheer  weariness.  Of  course  the  feeble 
queen-regent  and  the  feebler  boy-king,  Carlos  II,  failed  in  the 
attempt  and  the  only  importance  to  us  of  the  debate  lies  in  the 
falsehoods  and  prevarications  of  the  Suprema's  defence.  It 
was  notorious  that  there  had  been  heavy  confiscations,  for  per- 
secution, as  we  have  seen,  had  become  active  and  exceedingly 
profitable  as  the  half-century  had  drawn  to  a  close.  The  tribu- 
nal had  grown  rich  and  had  made  large  investments,  besides  the 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  40,  fol.  77. 


MISREPRESENTATIONS  223 

enormous  remittances  to  the  Suprema,  and  these  had  been  derived 
almost  exclusively  from  the  confiscations  and  penances.  Yet 
the  Suprema  endeavored  to  make  it  appear  that  financially 
confiscation  had  been  a  failure.  There  had  been  some  confisca- 
tions, it  admitted,  in  Mexico  and  Lima;  there  was  the  one  of 
Diego  Lopez  de  Fonseca,  amounting  to  79,965  pesos,  but  Jorje 
de  Paz  of  Madrid  and  Simon  Rodriguez  Bueno  of  Seville  had 
come  forward  with  claims  amounting  to  more.  They  had  asked 
to  have  the  money  sent  to  the  receiver  of  Seville  for  adjudication 
and,  on  its  arrival,  the  king  had  seized  it  and,  by  a  cedula  of  July 
14,  1652,  had  bound  himself  to  satisfy  the  claimants,  which  he 
did  by  assigning  to  them  certain  matters.  It  was  true  that,  in 
1642,  a  number  of  Judaizing  Portuguese  had  been  discovered  in 
Mexico,  of  whom  some  had  moderate  fortunes  and  one  was  reputed 
to  be  rich,  but  on  the  outbreak  of  the  Portuguese  rebellion,  for 
fear  that  the  viceroy  would  embargo  their  property,  they  had 
concealed  it,  and  although  the  Inquisition  had  published  censures, 
only  a  little  had  been  discovered,  while  there  came  forward  cred- 
itors with  evidences  of  claims  amounting  to  400,000  pesos,  so  that 
it  was  difficult  to  make  the  confiscations  meet  them,  to  say  noth- 
ing of  the  heavy  expenses  of  feeding  the  prisoners,  hiring  houses 
to  serve  as  prisons  and  the  increased  number  of  officials  required. 
Besides  this,  there  was  protracted  and  costly  litigation  in  investi- 
gating the  claims  and  detecting  suspected  frauds.  For  this, 
Archbishop  Maiiozca  was  appointed  visitador;  on  his  death 
Medina  Rico  was  sent  out  for  the  same  purpose  and,  when  he 
died,  the  matter  had  not  been  settled,  nor  has  it  yet.1  If  the 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  40,  fol.  85,  139. 

The  letter-book  of  the  tribunal  from  1642  to  1649  is  largely  filled  with  minute 
instructions  as  to  the  sequestrations  which  accompanied  arrests  and  the  manage- 
ment of  the  property  seized.  Though  called  sequestration  this  was  really  con- 
fiscation for,  without  awaiting  the  conviction  of  the  accused,  the  assets  were 
converted  into  money  as  rapidly  as  possible,  by  auctions  in  which  of  course  much 
was  sacrificed.  The  proceedings  were  most  arbitrary.  In  a  letter  of  October  21, 
1645,  the  commissioner  at  Vera  Cruz  is  instructed  as  to  some  cocoa  belonging  to 
prisoners,  either  on  hand  or  expected  to  arrive.  Trains  of  pack-mules  were  to 
be  seized,  no  matter  under  what  engagements  they  might  be,  to  hurry  the  goods 


224  MEXICO 

Suprema   was   to   be  believed,  confiscation  cost  more  than  it 
came  to. 

In  the  same  way  it  sought  by  garbled  statements  to  conceal 
the  fact  that  it  was  secretly  deriving  a  considerable  revenue 
from  the  colonial  tribunals,  thus  proving  that  they  were  possessed 
of  superabundant  means.  In  its  private  accounts  for  the  year 
1657,  there  is  an  item  of  10,000  ducats  from  those  of  Mexico 
and  Lima,  with  the  remark  that  this  is  always  in  arrears  and  is 
now  two  years  overdue1 — for  the  tribunals  were  as  anxious  as 
the  Suprema  to  conceal  their  gains.  Yet  it  could  not  hide  the 
fact  that  it  was  in  receipt  of  large  remittances  through  the  Con- 
tratacion  of  Seville  and  the  Government,  in  its  extremity,  had  an 
awkward  habit  of  seizing  what  took  its  fancy  and  possibly  pay- 
ing for  silver  in  vellon,  for  we  chance  to  hear  of  such  an  occur- 
rence in  1639  and  again  in  1644.2  The  Council  of  Indies,  as 
we  have  seen,  did  not  fail  to  call  attention  to  the  large  amounts 
which  it  was  thus  receiving,  but  it  airily  replied,  in  its  consulta 
of  November  16,  1667,  that  the  three  tribunals  had,  at  various 
times,  remitted  the  aggregate  of  130,803  pesos,  3  reales,  as  the 
proceeds  of  sales  of  varas  or  offices  of  alguazil,  and  that  this  and 
much  more,  from  the  home  tribunals,  amounting  in  all  to  over 
700,000  pesos,  had  been  contributed  to  the  necessities  of  the 
State.  It  repeated  this,  May  11,  1676,  with  the  addition  that 
the  colonial  tribunals  had  sent  about  8000  pesos  to  the  fund  for 


to  Mexico  and  no  other  cocoa  was  to  be  allowed  to  come,  so  that  this  might  bring 
a  better  price.  A  few  weeks  earlier,  on  September  25th,  orders  were  sent  for 
the  arrest  of  Captain  Fernando  Moreno  of  Miaguatlan  (Oaxaca),  who  was  claimed 
to  be  a  debtor  to  the  fisc.  He  was  to  be  seized  suddenly  and  hurried  off,  heavily 
ironed,  to  Mexico,  while  his  property  was  taken  possession  of.  He  was  engaged  in 
large  transactions  of  making  advances  to  Indians  for  cotton  yarn  and  cochineal 
and  minute  instructions  were  given  as  to  gathering  in  the  product  of  these  advan- 
ces, which  would  be  an  affair  of  time.  All  this  work  had  to  be  gratuitous.  When 
on  one  occasion  a  familiar  and  a  notary  charged  for  their  labor,  they  were  com- 
pelled to  refund  and  were  told  that  the  honor  of  serving  the  Inquisition  was 
sufficient  payment.— MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr. 

1  Bibl.  nacional,  MSS.,  D,  150,  p.  224. 

2  Archive  de  Simancas,  Lib.  40,  fol.  218,  328. 


WEALTH  OF  TRIBUNAL  225 

the  attempted  canonization  of  Pedro  Arbues  and  that  there  were 
also  remittances  for  the  media  anata  of  the  officials  and  for  the 
deposits  of  aspirants  to  office  to  defray  the  expenses  of  the  investi- 
gations into  limpieza — the  whole  manifesting  extreme  desire  to 
divert  attention  from  the  confiscations.1  In  spite  of  these  sub- 
terfuges there  can  be  no  question  that  the  tribunals  of  Mexico 
and  Lima  accumulated  vast  amounts  of  property.  The  magnifi- 
cence of  the  palace  of  the  Mexican  tribunal,  rebuilt  from  1732 
to  1736,  shows  that  it  could  gratify  its  vanity  with  the  most 
profuse  expenditure.2  That  it  was  fully  able  to  do  this  without 
impairing  its  revenues  may  be  assumed  from  the  assertion,  in 
1767,  of  the  royal  fiscal,  when  arguing  a  case  of  competencia 
before  the  Audiencia,  that  if  its  accumulations  were  not  checked, 
the  king  would  have  but  a  small  portion  of  territory  in  which 
to  exercise  his  jurisdiction.8  Certain  it  is  that  the  tribunal 
continued  to  be  able  to  render  large  pecuniary  support  to  the 
home  institution.  In  1693  we  hear  of  a  remittance  of  93,705 
pesos  and  in  1702  of  19,898  in  spite  of  heavy  defalcations  by  the 
receivers.  This  was  followed  by  remittances  of  40,000  pesos  in 
1706,  of  16,500  in  1720,  and  of  31,500  in  1727.  In  1771  the  tri- 
bunal lent  to  the  viceroy,  for  the  emergencies  of  the  war  with 
England,  60,000  pesos,  which  were  repaid,  and,  in  1795,  a  further 
loan  was  made  of  40,000  to  aid  in  the  war  then  raging.4  As 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  fol.  85,  139.     In  1631  the  vara,  or  wand  of  office  of 
alguazil,  was  sold  in  Castile  and,  in  1634,  the  Suprema  sought  to  extend  this  to 
the  Colonies,  under  pretext  of  applying  it  to  the  repairs  of  the  Castle  of  Triana, 
the  home  of  the  tribunal  of  Seville.     The  Council  of  Indies  stoutly  resisted  it  and 
a  consulta  of  November  16,  1638,  shows  that  the  struggle  was  still  going  on 
(Ibidem,  Libro  21,  fol.  162).     The  Suprema  finally  won,  but  of  course  it  absorbed 
the  proceeds  and  the  castle  was  repaired  by  means  of  the  levy  known  as  the 
Fabrica  de  Sevilla,  which  continued  to  be  collected  in  the  nineteenth  century. 

It  is  probable  that  the  amount  attributed  to  the  sale  of  varas  is  largely  exag- 
gerated. In  1652  there  came  a  remittance  from  Mexico  of  2298  pesos,  of  which 
1711  were  the  proceeds  of  sales  and  587  for  the  media  anata — a  tax  of  half  of  the 
first  year's  salary  of  those  appointed  to  office  (Ibidem,  Lib.  40,  fol.  295). 

2  Obregon,  op.  cit.,  la  Serie,  p.  188. 

8  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  28,  fol.  276. 
*  Medina,  pp.  213,  348,  379,  405. 
15 


226  MEXICO 

late  as  1809  the  Government  seized  a  remittance  from  it  to  the 
Suprema  of  60, 131 1  pesos  and  gave  a  receipt  for  the  proceeds, 
being  915,886  reales,  for  which,  after  the  Restoration,  we  find 
the  Suprema  claiming  restitution.1  In  spite  of  these  reiterated 
drains  we  shall  see  hereafter  what  wealth  the  tribunal  possessed 
when  suppressed. 

If  we  are  to  trust  the  list  of  sanbenitos  hung  in  the  cathedral 
of  Mexico,  after  the  great  auto  of  1601,  there  ensued  a  period  of 
comparative  inaction  for  nearly  half  a  century,  in  which  Prot- 
estants almost  disappeared  and  were  replaced  by  comparatively 
few  Judaizers.2  The  sanbenitos  however  represent  only  the 
serious  cases  and  the  tribunal  continued  to  gather  its  customary 
harvest  of  bigamists,  blasphemers,  sorcerers,  solicitors  and  other 
minor  offenders,  some  of  whom  yielded  a  liberal  amount  of  fines.8 
In  fact,  a  report  of  the  cases  pending  in  1625  amounts  to  the 
very  considerable  number  of  sixty-three,  showing  that  there  was 
ample  business  on  hand,  receiving  attention  with  more  or 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Libro,  435,  2°. 

2  Obregon,  op.  cit.,  2°  Serie,  pp.  352-55.     From  1601  to  1646  the  only  sanbenitos 
were — 

1603.     A  Fleming  relaxed  for  Calvinism,  one  Judaizer  reconciled  and  one  re- 
laxed in  effigy  and  two  mulattos  reconciled  for  heresy. 

1605.  An  Irishman  reconciled  for  Lutheranism  and  a  Portuguese  for  Judaism. 
There  were  however  36  penitents  in  this  auto  of  whom  21  were  negroes  and 
mulattos  for  blasphemy.     When  in  1605  the  general  pardon  for  Judaizers  de- 
scended from  Portuguese  reached  Mexico,  there  was  only  one  to  be  liberated. — 
Medina,  pp.  143,  146. 

1606.  A  mulatto  relaxed  for  administering  sacraments  without  ordination. 
There  was  however  another  person  guilty  of  the  same  offence,  a  married  priest  and 
a  blasphemer. — Medina,  p.  145. 

1621.     A  German  reconciled  for  Lutheranism 
1625.     Three  Judaizers  reconciled. 
1626      One  Judaizer  relaxed  in  effigy. 
1630.     Three  Judaizers  reconciled. 

1635.  Four  Judaizers  reconciled,  one  relaxed  in  person  and  four  in  effigy. 
This  is  evidently  incomplete.     Medina,  p.  165,  reports  that  in  this  auto  there 
were  twelve  Judaizers  reconciled  and  five  effigies  of  the  dead  relaxed. 

1636.  One  Judaizer  relaxed  in  effigy. 
'  Medina,  pp.  146-50. 


THE  EDICT  OF  FAITH  227 

diligence.1  After  this  however  the  activity  of  the  tribunal 
diminished  so  greatly  that,  on  July  12,  1638,  it  reported  that  it 
had  not  a  single  case  pending,  and  a  year  later  that  it  had  but  one, 
which  was  against  a  priest  charged  with  solicitation  in  the  con- 
fessional.2 This  is  a  singular  tribute  to  the  efficacy  of  the  Edict 
of  Faith — a  proclamation  requiring,  under  pain  of  excommuni- 
cation, the  denunciation  of  all  offences  enumerated  under  it,  of 
which  any  one  might  be  cognizant  or  have  heard  of  in  any  way. 
According  to  rule,  this  should  be  solemnly  published  every  year 
in  all  parish  and  conventual  churches;  it  kept  the  faithful  on  the 
watch  for  all  aberrations  and  rendered  every  one  a  spy  and  an 
informer.  It  had,  however,  at  this  time,  fallen  into  desuetude. 
In  a  letter  of  February  13,  1634,  the  inquisitors  say  that  for  ten 
years  the  publications  had  been  suspended  in  consequence  of 
the  indecency  which  attended  it  after  the  viceroys  refused  to  be 
present,  owing  to  quarrels  as  to  ceremonial,  and  they  ask  that  a 
royal  order  should  be  issued  through  the  Council  of  Indies  requir- 
ing the  attendance  of  the  civil  magistracy  in  the  procession  and 
publication.3 

Nearly  ten  years  more,  however,  were  to  elapse,  before  the 
questions  of  etiquette  and  precedence  were  settled,  and  at  last, 
on  March  1,  1643,  the  Edict  was  read  with  all  solemnity  in  the 
cathedral  of  Mexico  and  was  followed  by  an  abundant  harvest  of 
denunciations.4  How  numerous  these  habitually  were  may  be 
gathered  from  partial  statistics  of  those  received  after  a  publica- 
tion of  the  Edict  in  1650.  These  were  recorded  in  eight  books, 
of  which  four,  representing  presumably  one-half,  have  been  pre- 
served, containing  altogether  two  hundred  and  fifty-four  cases  of 


1  MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr.     The  cases  reported  consisted  of 

Judaism 22        Personating  priesthood       ...       4 

Solicitation 12         Uluminism 2 

Sorcery 8         Miscellaneous 11 

Bigamy 4 

3  Medina,  p.  168. 

•  MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr. 

4  Medina,  p.  169. 


228  MEXICO 

the  most  varied  character,  as  may  be  seen  by  the  summarized 
classification  below.1 

The  most  significant  feature  in  this  mass  of  so-called  testimony 
is  the  manner  in  which  the  most  trivial  acts  inferring  suspicion 
were  watched  and  denounced,  so  that  every  man  lived  under  a  uni- 
versal spy-system  stimulated  by  the  readiness  of  the  Inquisition  to 
listen  to  and  make  record  of  the  veriest  gossip  passing  from  mouth 
to  mouth.  Thus  one  informer  relates  how  in  1642,  eight  years 
before,  he  saw  Simon  de  Paredes  quietly  put  to  one  side  on  his 
plate  a  piece  of  pork  that  came  to  him  from  among  the  miscel- 
laneous contents  of  the  olla.  Another  gravely  deposes  how  a 
man  had  casually  told  him  that  he  had  heard  how  a  miner  named 
Bias  Carets,  of  the  mines  of  Los  Papagayos,  now  dead,  had  once 
taken  some  of  the  herb  Peyote  to  find  some  mines  of  which  he 
had  chanced  to  see  specimens,  and  the  marvels  which  thence 
ensued.2  From  the  book  of  Membretes  kept  by  the  tribunal 

1  Solicitation  in  the  confessional  .     14      Priest  saying  mass  without  conf ess- 
Sorcery  and  divination      .      .      .112          ing ".'•••I   :'!•! 

Consulting  diviners       ....     13      Personating  official  of  Inquisition       1 
Judaism  (besides  11  in  Pernam-  Celebrating  mass  without  ordina- 

buco) 41          tion 2 

Disregard   of   disabilities   of  de-  Impeding  the  Inquisition  ...       7 

scendants 8       Insults  to  images 6 

Bigamy 4      Concubinage  better  than  marriage      3 

Abuse  of  Inquisition  by  culprits    .       2       Irregular  fasting 1 

Remaining   under  excommunica-  Propositions 12 

tion  for  a  year 4      Various  suspicious  acts       ...       1 

Revealing  confessions  ....  1  Marriage  better  than  Religious  Life  1 
Heretical  blasphemy  ....  6  Criticizing  the  Inquisition  .  .  1 
Incest  ........  1  Denying  a  debt  due  to  the  conns- 
Neglect  of  observances  ...  5  cated  estate  of  a  culprit  .  .  1 
Mental  Prayer  better  than  Oral  .  1  Marriage  in  Orders  ....  1 
A  little  girl  for  breaking  an  arm  of  Priest  saying  4  masses  in  one  day  1 

an  image  of  Christ     ....       1       For  being  the  grandson  of  a  man 
A  boy  of  6,  for  making  crosses  on  relaxed  in  Portugal    ....       1 

the  ground,  stamping  on  them 

and  saying  that  he  was  a  heretic      1  (MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr.). 

Nearly  all  the  accusations  of  sorcery  are  of  Indians,  negroes  or  mulattos.  A 
note  states  that  the  testifications  against  Indians  are  not  indexed  because  the 
Inquisition  has  not  jurisdiction  over  them. 

2  The  plant  named  Peyote  had  intoxicating  and  narcotic  properties  causing 
pipe-dreams  and  visions.  It  was  largely  used  by  diviners  and  was  strictly  pro- 
hibited by  the  Inquisition. 


PR  OS  EC  VTWN  OF  J  UDA IZERS  229 

it  would  appear  that  when  this  kind  of  evidence  did  not  lead  to  a 
prosecution  it  was  carefully  preserved  and  indexed  for  reference 
in  case  of  subsequent  testimony  against  an  individual.  Such  was 
the  training  of  the  population  and  such  was  the  shadow  of  terror 
under  which  every  man  lived. 

Meanwhile,  during  the  quiescent  period  of  the  tribunal,  the 
class  of  New  Christians,  who  secretly  adhered  to  the  ancient  faith, 
increased  and  prospered,  accumulating  wealth  through  the 
opportunities  of  the  colonial  trade  which  they  virtually  monopo- 
lized. Their  fancied  security,  however,  was  approaching  its 
end.  The  vigorous  measures  taken  in  Spain,  between  1625  and 
1640,  to  exterminate  the  Portuguese  Judaizers,  revealed  the  names 
of  many  accomplices  who  had  found  refuge  in  the  New  World; 
these  were  carefully  noted  and  sent  to  the  colonial  tribunals.1 
Moreover,  from  1634  to  1639,  the  Lima  Inquisition  was  busy  in 
detecting  and  punishing  a  large  number  of  its  most  prominent 
merchants  guilty  of  the  same  apostasy,  who  had  relations  with 
their  Mexican  brethren,  revealed  during  the  trials.  The  tribunal 
seems  to  have  been  somewhat  slow  in  realizing  the  opportunities 
thus  afforded,  but  in  1642  there  opened  an  era  of  active  and  relent- 
less persecution  which  was  equally  effective  in  enriching  its  treas- 
ury and  in  purifying  the  faith.  To  prevent  the  escape  of  its 
victims,  on  July  9th  it  sent  orders  to  Vera  Cruz  prohibiting  the 
embarkation  of  any  Portuguese  who  could  not  show  a  special 
licence  from  it.  A  wealthy  merchant  named  Manuel  Alvarez  de 
Arrellano  had  already  sailed  for  Spain,  but  his  ship  was  wrecked 
on  Santo  Domingo  and  he  was  compelled  to  return  to  Havana. 
The  tribunal  was  on  his  track  and,  on  December  1st,  it  sent  orders 
to  its  commissioner  at  Havana  to  arrest  him,  seize  all  his  property, 
sell  it  at  auction  and  send  him  in  chains  with  the  proceeds  to 
Vera  Cruz.  This  was  successfully  accomplished  and,  in  acknowl- 
edging his  arrival,  the  tribunal  gave  further  instructions  as  to  some 
cases  of  cochineal,  which  it  understood  to  have  been  saved  from 
the  wreck.2 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  812;  Cuenca,  fol.  2. 

2  MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr. 


230  MEXICO 

There  was  small  chance  of  escape  for  any  culprit.  The  New 
Christians  were  closely  connected  by  family,  religious  and  business 
ties,  and  each  new  prisoner  was  forced  to  implicate  his  friends 
and  kindred.  Gabriel  de  Granada,  a  child  of  13,  arrested  in 
July,  1642,  was  made  to  give  evidence  against  108  persons,  includ- 
ing his  entire  family.1  There  were  then  three  inquisitors,  Francisco 
de  Estrada  y  Escobedo,  Bernabe  de  la  Higuera  y  Amarilla  and 
Juan  Saenz  de  Manozca,  whose  names  became  a  terror  to  the 
innocent  as  well  as  to  the  guilty.  Their  cruel  zeal  is  manifested  in 
a  letter  to  the  Suprema  virtually  asking  authority  to  relax  ten 
persons,  although  they  had  confessed  and  professed  repentance 
in  time  to  entitle  them,  by  the  rules  of  the  Inquisition,  to  recon- 
ciliation.2 It  was  a  wild  revel  of  prosecutions  and  condemnations. 
Medina  Rico,  the  visitador  or  inspector  who  came  in  1654,  reported 
that,  in  reviewing  the  proceedings,  he  found  that  no  attention 
had  been  paid  to  the  defences  presented  by  the  accused,  although 
in  many  cases  they  were  just.  A  single  case  will  indicate  the 
heartlessness  of  the  tribunal.  September  24,  1646,  Dona  Catalina 
de  Campos  sought  an  audience  to  say  that  she  was  very  sick  and 
near  unto  death  and  that  she  would  die  in  the  Catholic  faith  in 
which  she  had  lived.  She  was  sent  back  to  her  cell,  no  attention 
was  paid  to  her  and  some  days  later  she  was  found  dead  and 
gnawed  by  rats.3 

The  result  of  this  method  of  administering  justice  was  a  succes- 
sion of  autos  particular es,  in  1646,  1647  and  1648,  followed  by  an 
auto  general  in  1649. 

In  1646  there  were  thirty-eight  Judaizers  reconciled  and,  as 
reconciliation,  in  addition  to  prison  and  sanbenito,  inferred  con- 
fiscation, the  harvest  as  we  have  seen  was  large.  In  1647  the 

1  MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr. 

s  Carta  de  27  Nov.  1643  (MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr.).  These  prisoners  were 
all  reconciled  in  the  subsequent  autos  except  three  who  died  in  prison  and  were 
relaxed  in  effigy. 

For  the  individual  offences  of  these  inquisitors  and  their  subordinates  in 
cruelty,  rapacity,  embezzlement  and  licentiousness,  as  reported  by  the  visitador 
Medina  Rico,  see  Medina,  pp.  261-2. 

«  Medina,  pp.  239. 


AUTOS  DE  FE  231 

number  was  twenty-one.1  In  1648  there  were  two  autos — a  pub- 
lic one  on  March  29th  and  an  auto  particular  in  the  Jesuit  church 
on  March  30th.  In  the  former  there  were  eleven  penitents  for 
various  offences,  eight  Judaizers  penanced  and  eight  reconciled, 
two  reconciliations  for  Mahometanism,  twenty-one  effigies  of 
Judaizers  burnt  and  one  burning  in  person.  In  the  latter  there 
was  one  penitent  brought  from  the  Philippines  for  suspicion 
of  Mahometanism,  who  escaped  with  abjuration  de  levi  and  servi- 
tude for  life  in  a  convent  for  instruction;  there  were  two  for 
personating  priesthood  and  administering  sacraments  without 
orders,  who  received  300  and  200  lashes  respectively  and  were 
sent  to  the  galleys;  one  for  marrying  in  orders,  who  abjured  de 
vehementi  and  was  sent  to  serve  in  a  hospital  for  five  years;  a 
bigamist  who  had  200  lashes  and  the  galleys;  a  curandera,  who 
employed  charms  to  cure  disease  and  was  visited  with  200  lashes 
and  perpetual  exile  from  Puebla,  and  finally  there  were  twenty- 
one  Judaizers.  Of  these,  two  escaped  with  fines  of  2000  and  3000 
ducats  respectively  and  perpetual  exile  from  Mexico,  one  was  only 
exiled  and  eighteen  were  reconciled  with  confiscation  and  various 
terms  of  imprisonment,  in  addition  to  which  five  of  them  were 
scourged  and,  of  these  latter,  two  were  also  sent  to  the  galleys.2 
The  great  auto  general  of  April  11, 1649,  marks  the  apogee  of  the 
Mexican  Inquisition  and  of  this  we  have  a  very  florid  account, 
written  by  an  official.3  A  month  in  advance  the  solemn  procla- 
mation announcing  it  was  made  in  Mexico,  March  llth,  with  a 
gorgeous  procession,  to  the  sound  of  trumpet  and  drum,  and  this 
had  previously  been  sent  to  every  town  in  New  Spain,  so  that 
it  was  published  everywhere  at  the  same  hour.  Consequently, 
for  a  fortnight  in  advance  of  the  appointed  day,  crowds  began  to 
pour  in,  some  of  them  from  a  distance  of  a  hundred  or  two  hun- 


1  Medina,  pp.  181,  182. 

2  Medina,  p.  183. — El  Museo  Mexicano,  Mexico,  1843,  pp.  537  sqq.     Reprinted 
also,  with  some  abbreviation  as  an  appendix  to  a  translation  of  Fe"re"aPs  Mysteres 
de  la  Inquisition,  Mexico,  1850. 

3  My  copy  of  this  scarce  tract  unfortunately  lacks  the  title  page,  which  I  am 
thus  unable  to  give.    It  was  printed  in  Mexico  in  1649, 


232  MEXICO 

dred  leagues,  till,  as  we  are  told,  it  looked  as  though  the  country 
had  been  depopulated.  The  reporter  exhausts  his  eloquence  in 
describing  the  magnificence  of  the  procession  of  the  Green  Cross, 
on  the  afternoon  preceding  the  auto,  when  all  the  nobles  and 
gentlemen  of  the  city,  in  splendid  holiday  attire,  took  part,  and 
the  standard  of  the  Inquisition  was  borne  by  the  Count  of  San- 
tiago, whose  grandfather  had  done  the  same  in  the  great  auto  of 
1574  and  his  father  in  that  of  1601.  A  double  line  of  coaches 
extended  through  the  streets,  from  the  Inquisition  to  the  plazuela 
del  Volador,  where  the  ceremonies  were  to  be  performed,  and  so 
anxious  were  their  occupants  not  to  lose  their  positions  that  they 
remained  in  them  all  night  and  until  the  show  was  over.  It 
might  seem  that  all  Mexico,  from  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  was 
assembled  to  demonstrate  the  ardor  of  its  faith  and  to  gain  the 
indulgence  which  the  Vicar  of  Christ  bestowed  on  those  who 
were  present  at  these  crowning  exhibitions  of  the  triumph  of  the 
Church  Militant.  Inside  of  the  Inquisition  the  night  was  spent 
in  notifying  of  their  approaching  fate  those  who  were  about  to  die 
and  in  preparing  them  for  death. 

Of  the  one  hundred  and  nine  convicts  there  was  but  one 
Protestant,  a  Frenchman  named  Francois  Razin,  condemned  to 
abjure  for  vehement  suspicion  of  heresy  and  to  two  years'  service 
in  a  convent  for  instructions;  as  he  was  penniless,  we  are  told  that 
he  was  not  fined.  There  were  nine  Judaizers  who  abjured  for 
vehement  suspicion  and  were  banished  to  Spain;  three  of  them, 
being  impoverished,  were  not  fined  but  on  the  other  six  were  im- 
posed mulcts,  ranging  from  1000  to  6000  ducats,  amounting  in  all 
to  15,000  ducats  and  one  in  addition  had  200  lashes.  There  were 
nineteen  reconciled,  whose  estates  of  course  were  confiscated,  as 
also  were  those  of  the  relaxed,  seventy-eight  in  number.  Of 
these,  fifty-seven  were  effigies  of  the  dead,  of  whom  ten  had  died 
in  prison,  two  of  the  latter  being  suicides,  in  addition  to  which 
were  eight  effigies  of  fugitives.  Thirteen  were  relaxed  in  person, 
but  of  these  twelve  were  garroted  before  burning,  having  professed 
repentance  and  conversion  in  time.  Only  one  was  burnt  alive. — 


AUTO  DE  FE  OF  1649  233 

the  hero  of  the  occasion,  Tomas  Trevifio  of  Sobremonte.  His 
mother  had  been  burnt  at  Valladolid,  and  nearly  all  of  his  kindred, 
as  well  as  those  of  his  wife,  had  been  inmates  of  the  Inquisition. 
He  had  been  reconciled  in  the  auto  of  1625  and  there  could  be 
no  mercy  for  a  relapsed  apostate,  though  he  could  have  escaped 
the  fiery  death  by  professing  conversion  again.  He  had  lain  in 
prison  for  five  years  during  his  trial,  always  denying  his  guilt, 
but  when  notified  of  his  conviction,  the  night  before  the  auto,  he 
proclaimed  himself  a  Jew,  declaring  that  he  would  die  as  such, 
nor  could  the  combined  efforts  of  all  the  assembled  confessors 
shake  his  resolution.  To  silence  what  were  styled  his  blasphemies, 
he  was  taken  to  the  auto  gagged,  in  spite  of  which  he  made 
audible  assertion  of  his  faith  and  of  his  contempt  for  Christianity. 
It  is  related  that,  after  his  sentence,  when  he  was  mounted  to  be 
taken  to  the  quemadero,  the  patient  mule  assigned  to  him  refused 
to  carry  so  great  a  sinner;  six  others  were  tried  with  the  same 
result  and  he  was  obliged  to  walk  until  a  broken-down  horse 
was  brought,  which  had  not  spirit  enough  to  dislodge  its  unholy 
burden.  An  Indian  was  mounted  behind  him,  who  sought  to 
convert  him  and,  enraged  at  his  failure,  beat  him  about  the  mouth 
to  check  his  blasphemies.  Undaunted  to  the  last,  he  drew  the 
blazing  brands  towards  him  with  his  feet  and  his  last  audible 
words  were — "  Pile  on  the  wood;  how  much  my  money  costs  me!"1 
The  inquisitor-general,  Arce  y  Reynoso,  on  October  15,  1649, 
congratulated  Philip  IV  on  this  triumph  of  the  faith,  which  had 
been  the  source  of  joy  and  consolation  and  universal  applause, 
whereat  the  pious  monarch  expressed  his  gratification  and  desired 


1  In  addition  to  those  who  appeared  in  the  auto  there  were  two  women  con- 
demned to  relaxation,  Isabel  Nunez  and  Leonor  Vaz  who,  the  night  before  in 
the  prison,  sought  audience  with  the  inquisitors,  professed  conve^ion,  and  were 
withdrawn.  They  were  reconciled  in  church,  April  21,  with  irremissible  perpet- 
ual prison  and  sanbenito. 

Besides  the  summary  in  the  text,  the  list  of  sanbenitos  for  this  year  includes 
the  names  of  Francisco  Lopez  de  Aponte,  relaxed  in  person  for  atheism  and 
Sebastian  Alvares  for  obstinacy  in  various  errors  (Obregon,  p.  372),  but  they 
are  not  in  the  official  relation  and,  as  they  occur  again  in  1659  (p.  381),  there  is 
pbviously  an  erroneous  duplication. 


234  MEXICO 

*.  % 

the  inquisitors  to  be  thanked  in  his  name.  As  summarized  by 
Arce  y  Reynoso  the  results  of  the  four  autos  were  two  hundred 
and  seven  penitents  of  whom  a  hundred  and  ninety  were  Jews, 
nearly  all  Portuguese.  There  was  one  drawback  to  his  satisfac- 
tion. The  penitents  sentenced  to  banishment  were  directed  to 
be  sent  to  Spain,  and  repeated  royal  orders  required  that  they 
should  be  transported  free  of  charge,  but  the  captains  of  all  ves- 
sels, both  naval  and  commercial,  refused  to  carry  them  without 
pay  and,  as  they  had  been  stripped  of  all  their  possessions,  they 
could  not  defray  the  passage-money  themselves,  while  the  Inqui- 
sition made  no  offer  to  supply  the  funds.  Consequently  they 
remained  in  Vera  Cruz  or  wandered  through  the  land,  throwing 
off  their  sanbenitos  and  infecting  the  population  with  their  errors. 
Arce  y  Reynoso  suggested  to  the  king  that  he  should  give  them 
rations  while  on  board  ship  so  as  to  help  to  bring  them  over.  It 
never  seemed  to  occur  to  him  that  the  Inquisition,  which  was 
enriching  itself  with  their  confiscations,  could  spare  the  trifle 
requisite  for  the  execution  of  its  sentences  on  these  homeless 
and  penniless  wretches.1 

After  this  supreme  manifestation  of  its  authority,  the  Inquisi- 
tion became  again  somewhat  inert,  for  its  attention  was  largely 
absorbed  in  settling  the  details  of  the  confiscations  which  involved 
the  greater  portion  of  Mexican  commerce.2  The  tribunal  had 
its  routine  business  of  bigamists,  soliciting  confessors  and  women 
guilty  of  so-called  sorcery — cases  usually  despatched  in  the 
audience-chamber — though  there  was  an  auto  particular  cele- 
brated October  29,  1656.  In  1659,  however,  there  was  a  public 
auto  on  November  19th  which,  though  not  large,  merits  attention 
by  its  severity  and  the  peculiarity  of  some  of  the  delinquents. 
Of  these  there  were  thirty-two  in  all — twelve  blasphemers,  two 
bigamists,  one  forger,  one  false  witness,  one  for  violating  the 
secrecy  of  the  prison,  one  who  had  been  reconciled  for  Judaism 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Libro  38,  fol.  96,  101. 
*  When,  in  1664,  Medina  Rico  came  as  visitador,  he  found  1200  cases  pending 
in  suits  against  the  fisc  of  the  tribunal. — Medina,  p.  212, 


A  UTO  DE  FE  OF  1 659  235 

in  1649  and  had  thrown  off  the  sanbenito,  a  woman  for  suspicion 
of  Judaism,  an  alumbrado,  or  mystic,  with  visions  and  revelations. 
Then  there  were  two  sisters  Romero,  prosecuted  for  fraudulent 
visions  and  revelations,  of  whom  one  was  acquitted  and  the  other 
had  200  lashes  and  ten  years'  service  in  a  hospital — a  third  sister 
having  been  penanced  in  the  auto  particular  of  1656.  There  was 
also  Manuel  Mendez,  a  Portuguese,  suspected  of  Judaism,  who 
had  died  in  prison  and  was  now  acquitted.  Another  Portuguese, 
Diego  Diaz,  was  not  so  fortunate ;  he  had  been  condemned  in  1649 
to  abjuration  de  vehementi  and  perpetual  banishment,  but  he  did 
not  leave  Mexico ;  arrested  February  26, 1652,  he  had  lain  in  prison 
awaiting  an  auto  and  was  now  sentenced  to  be  burnt  alive  as 
pertinaciously  impenitent ;  by  mistake  the  executioner  commenced 
to  garrote  him,  but  was  stopped  by  the  alguazil  mayor,  who 
ordered  the  fire  lighted,  so  that  he  had  both  punishments. 
Similar  was  the  case  of  Francisco  Botello,  arrested  in  1642,  sen- 
tenced in  1649  to  200  lashes  and  banishment,  remaining  in  Mexico, 
arrested  again  in  1650  and  now  garroted  and  burnt.  These  two 
cases  indicate  the  treatment  accorded  to  those  alluded  to  above, 
who,  after  being  stripped  of  their  property,  were  ordered  to  leave 
the  country,  but  were  not  furnished  with  means  to  do  so. 

Another  convict,  Francisco  Lopez  de  Aponte,  was  accused  of  pact 
with  the  demon  and  of  heresies.  He  gave  signs  of  insanity,  but  on 
examination  by  physicians  was  pronounced  sane.  Under  severe 
torture  he  remained  perfectly  quiescent  and  insensible  to  pain, 
which  could  only  be  explained  by  diabolical  aid,  so  he  was  shaved 
all  over  and  inspected  carefully  for  charms  or  for  the  devil's 
mark,  but  in  vain.  A  second  torture  was  endured  with  the  same 
indifference  and  he  was  condemned  to  relaxation  as  an  apostate 
heretic.  On  the  night  before  the  auto  he  said  to  the  confessor 
who  endeavored  to  convert  him  "  There  is  no  God,  nor  hell,  nor 
glory;  it  is  all  a  lie;  there  is  birth  and  death  and  that  is  all." 
During  the  auto  he  manifested  no  emotion  and  was  burnt  alive 
as  an  impenitent. 

Juan  Gomez  had  been  arrested,  May  28,  1658,  as  an  Illuminist 


236  MEXICO 

and  herfye  sacramentario,  for  teaching  many  opinions  contrary 
to  the  Catholic  faith.  Condemned  to  relaxation,  he  maintained 
his  heresies  until,  during  the  auto,  he  weakened  and  professed 
repentance,  notwithstanding  which  he  was  burnt  alive. 

Pedro  Garcia  de  Arias  was  a  wandering  hermit  who,  although 
uneducated,  had  written  three  mystic  books  containing  erroneous 
doctrine.  When  on  trial  he  claimed  that  he  had  never  committed 
sin,  and  he  abused  the  Inquisition,  for  which  he  was  scourged 
through  the  streets  with  200  lashes.  When  notified  of  his  con- 
demnation to  relaxation  he  protested  that  he  would  not  beg  for 
mercy,  but  on  the  staging  he  asked  for  an  audience,  in  which  he 
insisted  that  there  were  no  errors  in  what  he  had  written.  Never- 
theless he  was  garroted  before  burning,  when  his  books,  hung 
around  his  neck,  were  consumed  with  him. 

Sebastian  Alvarez  was  an  old  man  who  claimed  to  be  Jesus 
Christ,  but  was  pronounced  to  be  sane  by  the  experts  who 
examined  him.  He  persisted  in  his  delusion  and  was  sentenced 
to  relaxation.  On  the  staging  he  asked  for  an  audience  and  was 
remanded  to  the  Inquisition,  where  two  days  later  he  had  an 
audience  and,  as  he  still  asserted  himself  to  be  Christ,  he  was 
sentenced  to  burning  alive  if  he  did  not  retract.  On  the  way  to 
the  quemadero  he  retracted  and  was  garroted  before  burning. 

In  this  curious  assemblage  of  eccentric  humanity,  the  most 
remarkable  of  all  was  an  Irishman  named  variously  William 
Lamport  or  Guillen  Lombardo  de  Guzman.  He  had  lain  in 
prison  since  his  arrest  as  far  back  as  October  25,  1642,  on  a  denun- 
ciation that  he  was  plotting  to  sever  Mexico  from  Spain  and 
make  himself  an  independent  sovereign,  for  he  claimed  to  be  the 
son  of  Philip  III  by  an  Irish  woman,  and  thus  half-brother  to 
Philip  IV.  This  was  his  real  offence,  but  the  Inquisition  claimed 
jurisdiction  because  he  had  consulted  an  Indian  sorcerer  and 
certain  astrologers  to  assure  the  success  of  his  enterprise.  The 
details  of  his  scheme  show  that  it  was  suggested  by  the  success 
with  which,  in  June,  1642,  Bishop  Palafox,  acting  under  secret 
orders  from  Philip,  had  ousted  from  the  viceroyalty  the  Marquis 


AUTO  DE  FE  OF  1659  237 

of  Escalona,  who  was  suspected  of  treasonable  leanings  towards 
Joao  of  Braganza  and  the  revolted  Portuguese.  With  the  aid  of 
an  Indian  singularly  skilled  in  forgery,  Lamport  had  drawn  up  all 
the  necessary  royal  decrees  which  would  enable  him  to  seize  con- 
trol, on  the  arrival  of  the  expected  new  viceroy,  the  Count  of 
Salvatierra.  Yet  he  was  no  common  adventurer,  but  a  man  of 
wide  and  various  learning,  thoroughly  familiar  with  English, 
French,  Spanish,  Italian,  Latin  and  Greek,  with  the  classical 
poets  and  philosophers,  with  the  Scriptures  and  the  fathers  and 
with  theology  and  mathematics.  This  was  proved  by  the  memo- 
rials which  he  drew  up  in  prison,  without  the  aid  of  books,  yet  full 
of  citations  and  extracts  in  all  languages  and  of  scripture  texts. 
These  were  scrutinized  by  the  calificador  who  verified  the  citations 
and  found  them  all  correct  and  who  moreover  certified  that  there 
were  no  errors  of  faith. 

In  the  account  of  his  life,  which  all  prisoners  of  the  Inquisition 
were  required  to  give,  he  stated  that  he  had  been  born  in  England, 
from  which  he  had  fled  in  his  twelfth  year  because  of  a  pamphlet 
entitled  Defensio  Fidei  which  he  had  written  against  the  king. 
After  marvellous  adventures  in  many  regions,  in  which  he  had 
rendered  services  to  Spain,  Philip  IV  had  summoned  him  to 
Madrid,  where  Olivares  patronized  him.  He  was  then  sent  to 
Flanders  to  aid  the  Cardinal  Infante,  to  whose  success  he  largely 
contributed,  especially  at  the  battle  of  Nordlingen  (1634).  After 
much  other  service,  Philip  gave  him  the  title  of  Marquis  of  Cro- 
pani  and  the  viceroy alty  of  Mexico,  from  which  he  was  to  eject 
the  occupant — and  for  this  he  held  forged  royal  cedulas.  That 
there  was  some  residuum  of  truth  at  the  bottom  of  his  story  would 
appear  from  his  familiarity  with  details  of  persons  and  events, 
and  there  is  no  doubt  that  he  was  an  object  of  interest  in  Madrid, 
for  a  royal  cedula  of  May  13, 1643,  ordered  the  case  to  be  expedited 
and  that  after  his  punishment  all  his  papers  should  be  given  to 
the  judge,  Andre's  Gomez  de  Mora.  Why  the  case  should  then 
have  been  protracted  for  seventeen  years  is  inexplicable,  unless 
it  was  designed  to  keep  him  imprisoned  for  life,  but,  however 


238  MEXICO 

that  may  be,  he  continued  to  be  a  source  of  solicitude,  not  unkindly, 
for  the  Suprema,  under  royal  orders,  wrote  June  21, 1550,  that  he 
should  be  given  a  cell-companion  to  alleviate  his  confinement 
if  he  so  desired  and  that  every  care  should  be  taken  of  his  life. 
Again,  on  July  7,  1660,  when  the  Suprema  received  the  account 
of  his  relaxation,  it  wrote  to  ask  why  this  had  been  done  against 
its  express  orders.  Altogether  the  case  is  a  mystery  to  which 
the  clue  is  lost. 

Diego  Pinto,  the  companion  given  to  share  his  confinement, 
was  soon  won  over  to  join  him  in  a  plan  of  escape,  which  was 
executed  December  26,  1650,  with  remarkable  skill  and  perse- 
verance. In  place  of  flying  to  some  safe  retreat  Lamport  spent 
the  night  in  affixing  in  various  prominent  places  certain  writings 
which  he  had  prepared,  and  in  persuading  a  sentinel  at  the  palace 
to  convey  one  to  the  viceroy  urging  him  to  arrest  the  inquisitors 
as  traitors.  Towards  dawn  he  induced  a  householder  to  take 
him  in  and  awaited  the  result  of  his  papers,  besides  writing 
others,  when  the  host  became  apprehensive  and  made  him 
remove  to  another  house.  No  time  was  lost  by  the  tribunal  in 
issuing  a  proclamation,  describing  his  person  and  ordering  his 
capture  under  severe  penalties;  his  host  promptly  reported  him 
and  he  was  carried  back  to  the  Inquisition,  when  he  was  lodged 
in  an  exceptionally  strong  cell,  his  feet  in  stocks  and  his  hands 
in  fetters.  In  January,  1654,  he  asked  for  writing  materials, 
with  which  he  composed  a  tremendous  attack  on  the  Inquisition, 
and  during  the  winter  he  utilized  the  sheets  of  his  bed  to  write 
a  book,  which  when  transcribed  proved  to  be  a  treatise  in  Latin 
verse  which  filled  270  closely  written  pages.  He  had  now  lain 
twelve  years  in  prison  without  trial;  his  overwrought  brain  was 
giving  way  and  his  insanity  became  more  and  more  manifest. 
At  last  the  time  for  the  auto  approached  and,  on  October  8,  1659, 
without  further  audience,  the  accusation  was  presented;  the 
trial  proceeded  swiftly  and  on  November  6th  sentence  was 
pronounced,  condemning  him  to  relaxation  for  divination  and 
superstitious  cures  showing  express  or  implicit  pact  with  the 


A  UTO  DE  FE  OF  1 659  239 

demon,  besides  which  he  had  plotted  rebellion  and  was  a  heretic 
sectary  of  Calvin,  Pelagius,  Huss,  Luther  and  other  heresiarchs 
and  an  inventor  and  dogmatizer  of  new  heresies.  As  a  special 
punishment  for  his  defamatory  libels  and  forgery  of  royal  decrees, 
he  was  to  listen  to  his  sentence  on  the  scaffold  with  a  gag  and 
hanging  by  his  right  arm  fastened  to  an  iron  ring.  During  the 
night  before  the  auto  he  assailed  with  opprobrious  epithets  the 
holy  men  who  sought  to  save  his  soul;  he  exclaimed  that  a  hundred 
legions  of  devils  had  entered  his  cell  with  them  and  finally  he 
covered  his  head  with  the  bed-clothes  and  refused  to  speak. 
At  the  auto  on  the  staging  he  was  like  a  statue  and  at  the  stake 
he  escaped  burning  alive  by  throwing  himself  against  the  iron 
ring  encircling  his  throat  with  such  force  that  it  killed  him.1 

The  last  act  of  the  tragedy  was  the  burning  of  the  effigy  of 
Joseph  Brufion  de  Vertiz,  a  priest  whose  offence  was  that  he  had 
been  the  dupe  of  the  imposture  of  the  Romero  sisters  and 
had  reduced  to  writing  their  visions  and  revelations.  Arrested 
September  9,  1649,  he  speedily  admitted  that  he  had  been 
deceived  and  cast  himself  on  the  mercy  of  the  inquisitors,  vainly 
endeavoring  to  ascertain  what  was  the  nature  of  the  charge  against 
him  so  that  he  could  confess  and  retract  whatever  errors  were 
imputed  to  him.  It  was  not,  however,  the  estilo  of  the  Inquisition 
to  do  more  than  to  tell  the  accused  to  search  his  memory  and 
clear  his  conscience  and  after  eighteen  months  of  this  suspense 
Brunon's  mind  commenced  to  give  way.  He  was  left  in  his  cell 
apparently  forgotten,  except  when  he  would  seek  an  audience 
to  ask  for  writing  materials  with  which,  in  1652  and  1654,  he 
drew  up  and  presented  attacks  upon  the  tribunal  of  a  character 
to  show  that  he  was  becoming  insane  through  despair.  No 
notice  was  taken  of  these  ebullitions  and  on  April  30,  1656,  he 
died  without  the  sacraments,  after  six  years  and  a  half  of  incar- 
ceration, during  which  he  had  never  been  informed  of  the  charges 
against  him.  His  body  was  thrust  into  unconsecrated  ground 
and  the  trial  was  continued  against  his  fame  and  memory  as  an 

1  Medina,  pp.  271-311. 


240  MEXICO 

/ 

alumbrado  heretic,  in  an  accusation  presented  May  11,  1657. 
There  was  no  defence  possible  by  his  kindred;  he  was  duly  con- 
demned and  in  this  auto  of  November  19,  1659,  his  effigy  was 
brought  forward,  clad  in  priestly  garments,  the  impressive  cere- 
mony of  degradation  was  performed  and  it  was  cast  into  the 
flames  with  his  bones  exhumed  for  the  purpose.1 

Cruel  as  all  this  performance  may  seem  to  us,  it  was  in  strict 
conformity  with  the  convictions  of  the  age  and,  when  Philip  IV 
received  the  report  of  the  auto,  he  warmly  congratulated  the 
inquisitor-general  on  the  vigilance  which  preserved  the  purity 
of  the  faith  by  inflicting  merited  chastisement.2 

With  this  auto  the  murderous  activity  of  the  tribunal  may  be 
said  virtually  to  end.  Until  the  end  of  the  century  its  business 
consisted  almost  exclusively  in  the  commonplace  routine  of  biga- 
mists, blasphemers,  petty  sorcerers,  soliciting  confessors,  clerics 
administering  the  sacraments  without  priest's  orders  and  the 
like.  Thus  in  an  auto  celebrated  January  15, 1696,  out  of  twenty- 
six  penitents,  there  was  but  one  heretic  with  a  sanbenito;  there 
was  a  Greek  schismatic  reconciled  and  the  rest  were  sixteen 
bigamists,  one  Franciscan  tertiary  for  Illuminism,  a  woman  for 
imposture  and  four  men  and  two  women  for  the  superstitious 
practices  conveniently  classed  as  sorcery  with  explicit  or  implicit 
pact  with  the  demon.3  Yet  during  this  half-century  there  were 
a  couple  of  cases  showing  that  a  nearly  bloodless  career  was  not 
due  to  any  surcease  of  fanatic  zeal.  In  November,  1673,  was 
arrested  a  wandering  hermit  named  Juan  Bautista  de  Cardenas, 
charged  with  being  Huso  y  alumbrado,  with  grave  suspicion  of 
sacramentarian  heresy.  After  giving  the  customary  account 
of  his  life  he  took  refuge  in  absolute  silence,  which  suggested 
that  he  was  possessed  by  a  demon,  but  exorcism  proved  unavail- 
ing. Sharp  torture  was  then  tried,  but  it  elicited  only  the  usual 


1  Proceso  contra  Joseph  Brufion  de  Vertiz  (MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr.). 
I  have  considered  this  curious  case  at  greater  length  in  "Chapters  from  the 
Religious  History  of  Spain,"  pp.  362-73. 

1  Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  60,  fol.  189. 
1  Obregon,  op.  cit.,  2»  Serie,  pp,  380-4. 


SOLICITATION  241 

shrieks  of  pain.  The  conclusion  drawn  from  this  was  that  he 
was  a  contumacious  heretic  and  in  July,  1675,  he  was  condemned 
to  relaxation,  when,  on  being  notified  of  it,  he  only  said  that  if 
he  was  carried  to  the  quemadero  he  would  die  for  God.  The 
tribunal  however  did  not  dare  to  execute  its  own  sentence  and 
sent  the  papers  to  the  Suprema  which,  June  22,  1676,  altered  it  to 
abjuration  de  levi,  deprivation  of  the  habit  he  wore  and  exile 
from  the  cities  of  Mexico  and  Puebla,  adding  that  the  torture 
had  been  abusive  seeing  that  he  had  not  been  formally  testified 
against  for  heresy.  The  other  case  was  that  of  Fray  Francisco 
Manuel  de  Cuadros,  who  had  left  his  Order  and  practised  as  a 
curandero,  or  curer  of  disease  by  charms.  He  was  thrown  in 
prison,  November  14,  1663,  and  during  his  trial,  which  was  pro- 
tracted for  nearly  fifteen  years,  he  confessed  to  being  an  agnostic, 
except  as  to  the  existence  of  God,  but  he  admitted  that  he  was 
ignorant  and  half-crazy.  At  the  auto  of  March  20,  1679,  he  was 
condemned  to  relaxation  after  degradation,  but  at  the  quemadero 
he  showed  signs  of  repentance,  in  virtue  of  which  he  was  admitted 
to  the  sacraments  and  was  strangled  before  burning.1 

In  the  public  autos  there  is  no  trace  of  one  of  the  principal 
duties  of  the  Inquisition  in  the  repression  of  the  prevalent  crime 
of  the  seduction  of  women  by  their  confessors,  euphemistically 
known  as  solicitation  in  the  confessional.  Even  as  bigamy 
had  been  brought  under  inquisitorial  jurisdiction  by  the  some- 
what forced  assumption  that  it  implied  erroneous  belief  in  the 
sacrament  of  matrimony,  so  solicitation  was  held  to  infer  in  the 
confessor  error  as  to  the  sacrament  of  penitence.  At  least  this 
was  the  reason  alleged  when,  recognizing  that  the  spiritual  courts 
were  useless  to  check  the  practice,  Paul  IV,  in  1561  entrusted  its 
suppression  in  the  Spanish  dominions  to  the  Inquisition,  and 
Gregory  XV,  in  1622,  extended  this  to  other  lands  in  which  the 
Holy  Office  existed.  Priests,  however,  for  the  avoidance  of 
scandal,  were  never  paraded  in  public  autos,  unless  they  were 


1  Medina,  pp.  328,  330. 
16 


242  MEXICO 

to  be  deprived  of  their  orders;  their  sentences  were  read  in  the 
audience-chamber  with  closed  doors  and  in  the  presence  only  of 
a  selected  number  of  their  brethren,  to  whom  the  fate  of  the  culprit 
should  serve  as  a  wholesome  warning.1  While,  therefore,  the 
knowledge  of  this  offence  was  sedulously  kept  from  the  public, 
it  gave  the  tribunal  considerable  occupation.  The  morals  of 
the  Colonial  clergy,  for  the  most  part,  were  notoriously  loose 
and,  in  the  solitary  missions  and  parishes  among  the  natives, 
evil  passions  had  free  rein.2  This  was  enhanced  by  the  almost 
assured  prospect  of  immunity,  for  the  women  seduced  were  the 
only  possible  accusers  and  it  has  always  proved  exceedingly 
difficult  to  induce  them  to  denounce  their  seducers.  Naturally 
therefore  the  Inquisition,  on  its  establishment,  was  speedily 
called  upon  to  prosecute  such  culprits  and,  up  to  1577,  it  already 
had  five  cases.3  It  seems  however  not  to  have  enforced  its 
exclusive  jurisdiction  over  the  offence  if  we  may  judge  from  the 
proceedings  in  the  case  of  Fray  Juan  de  Saldana,  in  1583,  for 
when  it  assumed  the  prosecution  he  was  undergoing  six  months' 
imprisonment  by  his  superiors  because  at  Tequitatlan  he  had 
violated  an  Indian  girl  and,  when  she  refused  to  continue  the 
connection,  he  had  her  arrested  and  flogged,  after  which  she 
submitted.  Though  only  34  years  of  age  he  was  a  person  of 
consideration  in  his  Franciscan  Order,  he  had  occupied  various 
positions  of  importance  and  at  this  time  was  guardian  of  the  con- 
vent of  Suchipila,  where  he  seduced  three  sisters,  his  penitents, 
the  daughters  of  Diego  Flores,  the  encomendero  of  Suchipila 
and  a  person  of  distinction.  There  seems  to  have  been  little 
or  no  concealment  about  it;  he  boasted  openly  of  the  women 
he  had  seduced,  Spanish  as  well  as  Indian,  not  only  in  Suchipila 

1  In  the  auto  of  1601  the  priest  Juan  Plata  appeared  as  a  penitent  and  was 
suspended  from  orders  for  connivance  in  pretended  revelations  of  a  nun  of  the 
Puebla  convent  of  St.  Catherine  of  Siena.  He  was  also  a  solicitante,  having 
seduced  her  in  the  confessional,  but  this  was  studiously  omitted  from  the  sentence 
read. — Medina,  op.  cit.,  p.  125. 

*  Oviedo  y  Vald&j,  Las  Quinquagenas  de  la  Nobleza  de  Espafia,  I,  383  (Madrid, 
1880). — Concil.  Mexican.  I,  ann.  1555,  cap.  Ivii. — Mendieta,  Hist,  eccles.  Indiana, 
Lib.  iv,  cap.  xlv. 

'  Medina,  p.  54. 


SOLICITATION  243 

but  in  his  visitations,  and  he  evidently  had  no  idea  that  he  was 
incurring  risk  of  the  Inquisition,  for  when  remonstrated  with 
he  asked  what  his  prelates  could  do  to  him — it  was  only  a  dozen 
strokes  of  the  discipline  and  a  year's  suspension  from  his  guard- 
ianship. When  brought  to  trial  he  was  frank  in  his  admissions; 
two  years  before  he  had  been  deprived  of  confessing  Spanish 
women,  but  as  guardian  he  had  licence  to  do  so;  he  mentioned 
seven  Indian  women  whom  he  had  seduced  in  confession  besides 
a  mestizo  and  several  Spaniards.  In  these  cases,  the  accusation 
of  the  fiscal  and  the  exordium  of  the  sentence  are  eloquently 
rhetorical  as  to  the  heinous  guilt  in  one,  clothed  with  the  awful 
power  of  the  priesthood,  using  that  power  to  lead  astray  the  souls 
seeking  salvation  through  him,  but  when  it  came  to  defining  the 
penalty  there  is  a  tenderness  which  suggests  that  in  reality  the 
offence  was  regarded  as  much  less  important  than  aberration 
on  some  minute  point  of  faith.  When  his  sentence  was  read, 
May  5,  1584,  he  was  subjected  to  the  discipline  for  the  space 
of  a  miserere;  he  was  deprived  of  the  faculty  of  confessing,  was 
suspended  from  orders  for  six  years,  was  recluded  for  two  years 
in  a  convent  with  the  customary  disabilities  and  was  banished 
for  six  years  from  the  see  of  Guadalajara.1 

Such  treatment  was  not  adapted  to  strengthen  the  carnal- 
minded  against  temptation  so  severe  and  the  vice  flourished 
accordingly.  As  the  inquisitors  stated  in  a  letter  to  the  Suprema 
of  May  22,  1619,  it  was  a  very  frequent  offence  in  those  parts 
and  many  confessors  regarded  it  as  trivial,2  and  the  list  of  cases 
of  solicitation  for  the  years  1622-4  contains  fifty-six  names,  of 
which  seven  were  from  Manila,  for  the  Philippines  were  a  depend- 
ency of  the  Mexican  tribunal.  That  leniency  increased  with 
time  may  be  assumed  from  the  case,  in  1721,  of  Fray  Francisco 
Diego  de  Zarate,  President  of  the  Mission  of  Santa  Maria  de  los 
Angeles  of  Rio  Blanca,  a  Franciscan  entrusted  with  many  impor- 
tant positions.  The  summary  in  his  trial  states  that  the  evidence 

1  MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr. 

2  "Que  es  delito  muy  reiterado  en  estas  partes  y  muchoa  confesQrQs  ha/Jen 
poquisimo  caso  d61." — Medina,  p.  162. 


244  MEXICO 

collected  proved  a  hundred  and  twenty-six  acts  of  solicitation 
with  fifty-six  women  and  that  it  was  his  habit  to  solicit  every 
one  who  came  to  him  to  confess.  It  is  impossible  to  conceive 
anything  more  brutal  than  some  of  the  details  of  the  evidence; 
the  offence  in  many  cases  was  almost  public  and  might  have 
continued  indefinitely  had  he  not  banished  from  Rio  Blanco  a 
woman  and  her  family  because  she  resisted  him,  whereupon 
she  talked  and  created  a  scandal  that  rendered  action  necessary. 
Of  the  women,  twenty-one  were  Indians,  eight  were  Spaniards 
(one  of  them  his  near  relative),  eight  Mulattos,  four  Mestizos  and 
fifteen  whose  race  is  not  specified.  When  the  accusation,  detail- 
ing all  the  cases,  was  read  to  him,  he  admitted  its  correctness 
and  indeed  he  had  previously  made  a  written  confession  which 
contained  a  large  number  that  had  escaped  the  investigations  of 
the  prosecution.  Aggravated  as  was  this  case  Fray  Francisco 
escaped  with  a  second  reading  of  his  sentence  in  the  Franciscan 
convent,  where  a  circular  discipline  was  administered,  perpetual 
deprivation  of  confessing  and  of  active  and  passive  voice  in  his 
Order,  six  months'  suspension  from  celebrating  mass  and  two 
years'  reclusion  in  a  convent,  of  which  the  first  was  to  be  passed 
in  a  cell  with  fasting  on  bread  and  water  on  Fridays  and  Satur- 
days, and  the  last  place  in  choir  and  refectory.1  Yet  inadequate 
as  was  the  habitual  treatment  of  the  offence  by  the  Inquisition, 
it  was  regarded  as  unduly  harsh  by  the  clerical  authorities.  The 
inquisitors,  in  a  letter  of  1666  to  the  Suprema,  by  way  of  illus- 
trating the  prevalent  laxity  of  the  Religious  Orders,  mention 
that  after  they  had  penanced  four  frailes  for  solicitation,  they 
were  applied  to  to  remove  the  restrictions  which  prevented  the 
culprits  from  being  promoted  to  prelacies.2  Self-denunciation, 

1  MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr. 

» Medina,  p.  320. 

In  1664  the  tribunal  asked  to  have  its  jurisdiction  extended  over  unnatural 
crime  and  bestiality,  which  it  described  as  exceedingly  prevalent,  especially  in 
the  Religious  Orders,  but  the  Suprema  refused. — Ibidem,  p.  321. 

It  was  beyond  the  power  of  the  Suprema  to  accede  to  this  without  a  special 
papal  delegation.  In  Spain  this  had  been  granted  to  the  tribunals  of  the  King- 
doms of  Aragon,  but  not  to  those  of  Castile. 


JURISDICTIONAL  PRIVILEGE  245 

as  in  Spain,  was  tolerably  certain  to  win  virtual  immunity.  In 
1712,  Luis  Marin,  vicar  of  Nativitas,  accused  himself  by  letter, 
to  which  the  tribunal  promptly  responded  by  summoning  him 
to  appear  within  thirty  days,  but  that  only  a  reprimand  was 
intended  is  evident  from  the  summons  being  accompanied  with 
a  faculty  to  absolve  him  from  the  excommunication  incurred, 
sent  to  Padre  Fernandez  de  Cordova,  S.  J.,  who  was  instructed 
to  counsel  him  to  abstain  for  the  present  from  confessing  women.1 
The  very  miscellaneous  functions  assumed  by  the  Inquisition 
in  extending  its  jurisdiction  over  a  variety  of  matters  foreign 
to  its  original  purpose  is  illustrated  by  a  fortuitous  collection  of 
397  cases  between  its  commencement  in  1572  and  the  year  1800. 
In  these  the  offences  alleged  are2 — 

Bigamy 76  Heresy     ........   20 

Judaism 71          Propositions  ' 13 

Offences  against  the  Inquisition   .   49          Uluminism 12 

Solicitation 44          False  witness 10 

Blasphemy 39  Personating  priesthood       ...     7 

Sorcery  and  superstitions  ...  29          Miscellaneous .27 

The  considerable  proportion  of  offences  against  the  Inquisition 
arose  from  the  perpetual  troubles  caused  by  what  was  known  as 
its  temporal  jurisdiction,  apart  from  its  spiritual  sphere  of  action. 
Every  one  connected  with  it  in  an  official  capacity,  however 
insignificant,  with  his  family,  servants  and  slaves,  was  entitled, 
in  a  greater  or  less  degree,  to  the  fuero,  or  jurisdiction  of  the 
Holy  Office,  and  to  exemption  from  pleading  or  prosecution  in  the 
secular  court  if  a  layman,  or  the  episcopal  court  if  an  ecclesiastic. 
As  favoritism  rendered  this  privilege  virtually  an  immunity  for 
crime  it  was  eagerly  sought  and,  as  it  was  the  source  of  influence 
and  of  profitable  business,  the  tribunal  endeavored  to  extend  its 
jurisdiction  in  every  way,  with  little  regard  to  the  limits  imposed 
by  law.  This  led  to  constant  conflicts  between  the  rival  juris- 
dictions, in  which  the  tribunal  used  without  scruple  its  faculties 
of  excommunication  and  of  treating  any  opposition  as  an  attempt 


MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr.  2  Ibidem. 


246  MEXICO 

to  impede  its  freedom  of  action,  a  crime  to  be  prosecuted  and 
severely  punished.  In  Spain  these  irreconcilable  pretensions 
were  the  cause  of  constant  troubles,  the  settlement  of  which  was 
through  the  process  known  as  competencia,  carrying  them  up 
to  the  Supreme  Council  of  the  Inquisition  on  the  one  hand  and 
to  the  Council  of  Castile  or  of  Aragon  on  the  other,  with  the 
monarch  as  the  final  arbiter.  In  the  Colonies,  however,  as  we 
shall  see,  this  system  was  practically  eluded,  and  the  tribunals 
became  even  more  arbitrarily  lawless  than  those  of  the  home 
country,  sometimes  abusing  their  power  after  a  fashion  that 
involved  the  whole  land  in  confusion,  for  in  matters  of  faith  they 
had  no  superior,  short  of  the  inquisitor-general,  and  it  rested 
with  themselves  to  define  what  was,  directly  or  indirectly,  a 
matter  of  faith. 

There  were  two  classes  of  officials  whose  claims  to  the  fuero 
were  different.  Those  known  as  titulados  y  asalariados  were 
directly  employed  in  the  tribunal,  holding  commissions  from  the 
inquisitor-general,  enjoying  salaries  and  understood  to  devote 
themselves  exclusively  to  its  service.  For  them  and  their  families 
and  dependants  the  fuero  was  complete,  in  both  civil  and  criminal 
matters,  and  both  active  and  passive — that  is,  whether  as  plain- 
tiff or  defendant.  They  were  comparatively  few  in  number, 
their  position  was  unchallenged  and,  whatever  may  have  been 
the  injustice  and  oppression  thence  arising,  there  was  little  occa- 
sion for  dispute.  Beyond  these  were  the  unsalaried  officials — 
commissioners  and  their  notaries  and  alguazils,  stationed  at  all 
important  centres,  consultors,  calificadores  or  censors  and,  above 
all,  familiars  numerously  scattered  throughout  the  land.  All 
these  pursued  their  regular  avocations  and  only  acted  when 
called  on  for  special  service;  they  received  no  salary,  but  the 
positions  were  eagerly  sought,  chiefly  on  account  of  the  privi- 
leges and  immunities  which  they  conferred.  Of  these  the  famil- 
iars were  by  far  the  most  numerous  and  troublesome.  In  Spain 
the  definition  of  their  privileges  had  been  the  subject  of  numerous 
settlements  known  as  Concordias  and,  when  Philip  II  established 


FAMILIARS  247 

the  colonial  tribunals,  he  endeavored  to  forestall  trouble  by 
extending  to  them  the  Castilian  Concordia  of  1553,  which  was 
much  less  favorable  to  the  familiars  than  those  of  the  kingdoms 
of  Aragon  and,  at  the  same  time,  he  sought  to  limit  the  number 
of  appointees. 

Among  the  documents  issued  in  1570  is  a  cedula  addressed  to 
the  colonial  authorities,  in  which  Philip  conveys  to  them  the 
regulations  adopted  by  the  inquisitor-general.  In  the  city  of 
Mexico  there  are  allowed  twelve  familiars,  in  the  cathedral 
towns  four,  in  other  towns  one.  Lists  of  these  and  of  all  changes 
are  to  be  furnished  to  the  local  magistracy,  so  that  they  may  see 
that  the  number  is  not  exceeded  and,  in  case  of  improper  appoint- 
ments, they  are  to  report  to  the  tribunal  or,  if  necessary,  to  the 
inquisitor-general.  In  civil  suits  the  familiars  are  not  entitled 
to  the  fuero,  whether  as  plaintiffs  or  defendants.  In  criminal 
matters  not  as  plaintiffs  while,  as  defendants,  they  are  to  enjoy  it 
except  in  cases  of  treason,  unnatural  crime,  raising  popular  com- 
motions, forging  letters  of  safe-conduct,  resistance  to  royal 
commands,  abduction  or  violation  of  women,  highway  robbery, 
house  or  church  breaking,  arson  of  houses  or  harvests  and  "  other 
crimes  greater  than  these"  and  also  in  resistance  or  disrespect 
to  the  royal  judges.  Excepted  also  is  official  malfeasance  in 
those  holding  public  office.  Arrest  by  secular  judges  is  permitted, 
in  cases  entitled  to  the  fuero,  provided  the  culprit  is  handed  over 
to  the  Inquisition,  together  with  the  evidence,  which  is  to  be  at 
his  expense.  If  the  offence  is  committed  outside  of  the  city  of 
Mexico,  the  offender  cannot  return  to  his  place  of  residence 
without  exhibiting  a  copy  of  the  inquisitorial  sentence,  with 
evidence  of  its  fulfilment.  By  a  cedula  of  May  13,  1572,  more- 
over, offences  committed  against  Indians  were  added  to  the 
excepted  cases.1 

This  all  appears  definite  enough,  but  it  was  easily  evaded. 
At  first  there  seems  to  have  been  a  disposition  to  conform  to  its 


1  Biblioteca  national  de    Madrid,   Section    de    MSS.,    X,   157,  fol.  240  (see 
Appendix). — Royal  Library  of  Munich,  Cod.  Hispan.  79. 


248  MEXICO 

intent.  In  1575  a  familiar  named  Rodrigo  de  Yepes,  who  had 
given  the  lie  to,  and  repeatedly  struck  in  the  face,  the  alcalde  of 
Valladola,  was  arrested  by  the  civil  magistrate  and  claimed  by 
the  tribunal  but,  after  a  competencia,  or  discussion  of  the  case 
by  the  civil  and  inquisitorial  authorities,  the  latter  admitted 
that  it  was  excepted  and  surrendered  him.  On  the  other  hand, 
in  1615,  Diego  de  Carmona  Jamariz,  a  familiar  of  Puebla,  was 
arrested  for  the  murder  of  his  enemy,  Joan  de  Olivarez,  and  was 
surrendered  to  the  Inquisition  without  a  competencia,  although 
murder  would  seem  to  be  a  greater  crime  than  highway  robbery 
or  burglary.  The  widow  prosecuted  him  before  the  tribunal, 
but  it  was  useless  and  the  case  was  dropped.  In  Spain,  the 
Inquisition  had  devised  the  ingenious  argument  that,  until  a 
crime  was  proved,  it  could  not  be  classed  as  excepted  and  there- 
fore the  affair  was  under  its  jurisdiction  until  conviction,  which 
enabled  it  to  protect  its  familiars,  and  this  plea  was  used,  in  1616, 
in  the  case  of  Gonzalo  Antunez  Ydnez,  a  familiar,  prosecuted  by 
order  of  the  viceroy.1 

It  was  not  only  the  familiars  who  gave  trouble,  but  the  numer- 
ous other  unsalaried  officials.  The  commissioners  with  their 
notaries  and  alguazils  formed  little  groups  in  the  provincial 
towns,  of  which  the  members  supported  each  other  and  set  the 
magistrates  and  courts  at  defiance.  In  the  original  instructions 
issued  to  the  inquisitors  they  were  admonished  to  be  careful 
in  the  selection  of  commissioners,  who  were  not  to  interfere  with 
the  constituted  authorities  or  to  provoke  quarrels,  but  were 
merely  to  execute  the  mandates  of  the  tribunal  and  to  report 
on  such  matters  as  should  present  themselves.2  Distance  and 
the  difficulty  of  communication,  however,  rendered  them  prone 
to  abuse  their  position,  and  in  this  they  were  emboldened  by 
the  unwavering  support  of  the  tribunal.  Throughout  all  the 

1  These  cases  are  derived  from  the  Munich  MS.,  last  cited,  entitled  "Extractos 
de  Causas  [de]  Familiares  y  Ministros  que  no  son  Oficiales  que  ay  en  la  Camara 
del  Secreto  de  la  Inquisicion  de  Mexico  en  este  presente  afio  de  1716." 

8  E.  N.  Adler,  The  Inquisition  in  Peru  (Publications  of  the  American  Jewish 
Historical  Society,  No.  12), 


COMMISSIONERS  249 

Spanish  Colonies  the  commissioner  was  an  object  of  dread  and 
the  subject  of  perpetual  complaint  on  the  part  of  the  secular 
and  ecclesiastical  powers.  The  general  sentiment  is  expressed, 
as  late  as  1777,  by  Santiago  Joseph,  Bishop  of  Cuba,  in  a  letter 
to  Inquisitor-general  Bertran.  All  the  commissioners  whom 
he  had  known,  he  said,  had  been  ignorant  persons,  with  the 
exception  of  one  whose  term  of  service  was  brief.  There  was  no 
salary  to  attract  competent  men  and  the  place  was  taken  only  to 
serve  as  an  excuse  for  neglecting  all  clerical  functions  and  duties. 
The  commerce  of  Havana  brought  numerous  heretics  who  scat- 
tered their  poison  and  he  dared  not  interpose  for  fear  of  the 
consequences  of  invading  inquisitorial  jurisdiction.  The  exist- 
ing incumbent  paid  no  attention  to  this  and,  when  not  absent, 
was  wholly  occupied  in  stirring  up  quarrels  with  the  civil  authori- 
ties.1 

The  commissioners  of  Mexico  fully  justified  this  characteri- 
zation by  the  good  bishop.  In  the  great  majority  of  cases  the 
hopelessness  of  resistance  to  their  arbitrary  acts  caused  sub- 
mission, but  occasionally  one  emerges  to  light  which  illustrates 
the  spirit  animating  the  Inquisition  and  its  officials.  In  1699, 
Father  Pistoya,  S.  J.,  the  ecclesiastical  judge  of  Sinaloa,  prose- 
cuted Martin  de  Verastegui  for  incestuous  adultery  with  Maria 
Garcia.  Thereupon  his  intimate  friend,  Perez  de  Ribera,  the 
commissioner,  to  protect  him,  promptly  appointed  him  notary, 
an  act  for  which  he  had  no  authority.  Pistoya  sent  the  evidence 
in  the  case  to  the  royal  court  of  Guadalajara  (Jalisco),  which 
ordered  the  Governor  of  Sinaloa,  Don  Jacinto  de  Fuensaldana, 
to  arrest  the  guilty  pair,  embargo  their  property  and  send  them 
to  the  royal  prison  of  Guadalajara.  Ribera  claimed  him  as  an 
official  of  the  Inquisition  and,  on  refusal,  excommunicated  the 
governor  and  the  military  officers  who  had  executed  his  orders 
and  posted  them  as  such  on  the  tablillas  of  the  church.  The 


1  J.  T.  Medina,  Hist,  de  la  Inquisition  de  Cartagena  p  437.  See,  also,  p.  278. 
Cf.  Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Libro  61,  fol.  251. — MSS.  of  Library  of 
University  of  Halle,  Yc  17. 


250  MEXICO 

tribunal  sustained  its  commissioner;  the  governor  was  obliged 
to  appear  before  it  and  beg  for  absolution;  the  commissioner 
was  empowered  to  take  testimony  in  the  case  and  report  it  to 
the  tribunal,  which  naturally  found  the  parties  innocent  and 
Verastegui  was  rewarded  with  a  genuine  notary's  commission 
in  lieu  of  the  fictitious  one  which  had  protected  him  from  justice. 
It  is  no  wonder  that,  in  replying  to  their  report  of  another  out- 
rageous case  in  1695,  the  Suprema  had  sharply  rebuked  the 
inquisitors,  ordering  them  to  act  with  justice  and  moderation 
and  prevent  the  complaints  of  their  proceedings,  which  came 
daily  to  the  king  from  the  Council  of  Indies,  but  the  case  of 
Verastegui  shows  how  little  respect  they  paid  to  the  admonition.1 
Yet,  with  all  this,  there  were  comparatively  few  of  the  bitter 
struggles,  so  frequent  in  Spain  during  this  period,  between  the 
royal  and  inquisitorial  jurisdictions.  It  was  not  that  the  inquisi- 
tors were  less  arbitrary  and  audacious  than  at  home,  for  their 
distance  from  the  court  rendered  them  even  more  independent, 
but  that  the  secular  magistracy  felt  its  weakness  and  offered 
less  resolute  resistance.  Spain  was  far  off  and  the  viceroy,  though 
representing  the  royal  autocracy,  was  under  strict  orders  to  show 
every  favor  to  the  Inquisition.  There  was  kept  in  the  royal 
chancellery  the  formula  of  a  letter  to  all  viceroys,  emphasizing 
the  great  services  of  the  Inquisition  to  religion  and  to  the  king 
and  ordering  it  to  be  favored  and  guarded  in  all  its  privileges, 
exemptions  and  liberties,  including  those  of  its  officials  and 
familiars.  Adherence  to  this  would  be  regarded  as  most  accept- 
able service  and  the  contrary  would  not  be  permitted.2  This 
portentous  document  was  sent  to  the  Viceroys  of  Mexico  and 
Peru  in  1603  and  was  doubtless  repeated  to  them  whenever 
necessary,  as  it  was  to  other  royal  representatives  at  subsequent 
periods.  As  a  rule  however  the  viceroys  and  the  tribunal  were 
at  odds  and  their  quarrels  were  not  conducive  to  popular  tran- 
quillity or  edification.  More  than  once  we  find  viceroys  like 


1  MSS.  of  Royal  Library  of  Munich,  Cod.  Hispan.  79. 
1  Solorzani  de  Indiar.  Gubern.,  Lib.  HI,  cap.  xxiv,  n.  16. 


CONCORDIA  OF  1610  251 

Mancera,  Cerralbo  and  Gelvez  threatening  the  inquisitors  with 
banishment.1 

As  a  matter  of  course,  under  such  auspices,  colonial  inquisitors 
could  never  be  restrained  within  the  limit  of  their  rightful  pre- 
rogatives, great  as  these  were.  A  royal  cedula  of  January  20, 
1587,  scolds  those  of  Lima  for  illegal  protection  of  their  familiars 
and  for  vexing  the  local  magistrates  by  summoning  them  from 
long  distances  before  the  tribunal.  Another  of  March  8,  1589, 
rebukes  them  for  creating  too  many  familiars  and  other  officials. 
Another  of  August  23,  1595,  reprimands  those  of  Mexico  for 
supporting  a  familiar  in  refusing  to  render  an  account  to  the 
royal  chancery  of  his  functions  as  custom-house  officer  at  Vera 
Cruz.2  These  complaints  were  of  almost  daily  occurrence  until 
at  length  Philip  III  sought  to  cut  them  off  at  the  root  by  forming 
a  junta  of  two  members  from  each  of  the  Councils  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion and  of  Indies  to  advise  him.  After  mature  deliberation 
they  did  so  and  the  result  is  what  is  known  as  the  Concordia  of 
1610.  The  prohibitions  embodied  in  this  are  eloquent  of  the 
audacity  of  the  inquisitors  in  exceeding  their  functions,  abusing 
their  authority  in  matters  wholly  outside  of  their  jurisdiction 
and  exercising  an  insufferably  vexatious  petty  tyranny,  the 
exasperating  effect  of  which  was  intensified  by  the  immunity 
enjoyed  by  the  servants  and  slaves  of  the  officials.  These  were 
justiciable  only  by  the  tribunal,  which  invariably  protected  them, 
so  that  the  community  was  exposed  without  redress  to  the  inso- 
lence of  a  class  peculiarly  apt  to  abuse  its  privileges. 

Under  pain  of  forfeiture  of  office  the  inquisitors  were  forbidden, 
directly  or  indirectly,  by  themselves  or  their  kindred,  to  farm 
the  public  revenues  or  to  prevent  their  being  farmed  to  the  highest 
bidder.  Neither  they  nor  the  salaried  officials  were  to  engage 
in  any  kind  of  trade,  under  the  same  penalty.  They  were  not 
to  claim  the  right  of  seizing  articles  at  an  appraised  price,  except 
under  urgent  necessity  for  the  support  of  the  prisoners  or  buildings 


Medina,  p.  315.  2  Solorzano,  loc.  cit.,  n.  61. 


252  MEXICO 

of  the  Inquisition.  Their  negroes  were  not  to  carry  arms  except 
when  accompanying  their  masters.  They  were  not  to  defend 
commissioners  or  familiars  in  frauds  on  the  revenue  nor  in  refusing 
to  render  an  account  of  deposits  made  with  them  by  order  of 
court.  They  were  not  to  detain  the  couriers  and  messengers 
who  served  as  a  rudimentary  post-office  and  were  to  remove 
the  prohibition  against  vessels  leaving  port  or  passengers  depart- 
ing without  their  licence.  They  were  not  to  arrest  the  royal 
alguazils  except  for  grave  and  notorious  excess  against  the 
Inquisition.  They  were  to  be  allowed  one  alguazil  in  Vera  Cruz 
and  were  to  dismiss  all  those  appointed  elsewhere.1  They  were 
not  to  protect  familiars,  who  held  public  office,  when  prosecuted 
for  official  malfeasance,  nor  commissioners  who  held  benefices 
for  offences  committed  in  their  character  of  incumbents.  They 
were  not  to  order  universities  to  grant  degrees  in  contravention 
of  their  statutes,  nor  were  they  to  interfere  in  matters  of  govern- 
ment apart  from  their  functions.  They  were  not  to  excommuni- 
cate a  viceroy  in  cases  of  competencia,  nor  was  the  viceroy  to 
evoke  to  himself  a  case  that  might  lead  to  a  competencia.  A 
provision  was  also  made  for  the  settlement  of  competencias 
without  the  tedious  resort  to  the  councils  in  Spain.  If  the  senior 
judge  and  senior  inquisitor  could  not  agree  in  their  conference, 
the  inquisitors  were  to  name  three  ecclesiastical  dignitaries  to 
the  viceroy,  who  was  to  select  one;  he  was  to  be  adjoined  to  the 
judge  and  inquisitor  and  the  majority  was  to  decide  or,  if  there 
were  three  discordant  opinions,  the  viceroy  was  to  choose  between 
them.2 

This  project  for  the  settlement  of  competencias  was  ineffective. 
A  ce*dula  of  February  7,  1569,  had  extended  to  the  colonies  the 
system  in  force  at  home,  and  under  it  there  had  been  in  Mexico, 


1  This  prohibition  was  removed  in  the  Concordia  of  1633. 

*  Recop.  de  las  Indias,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  xix,  ley  29. 

The  vexatious  petty  tyranny  in  which  the  tribunal  indulged  is  illustrated  by 
the  case  of  a  law-student,  Diego  de  Porras  Villerias,  about  1600,  who  was  fined 
in  100  pesos  and  banished  for  a  year  because  he  refused  to  honor  a  requisition 
for  two  cartloads  of  lime  for  the  prison  which  it  was  constructing. — Medina,  p.  137. 


COMPETENCES  DISUSED  253 

during  the  remainder  of  the  century,  seven  cases;  there  was  one 
in  1601  and  another  in  1602,  after  which  they  ceased.1  Solorzano 
tells  us  that  they  were  not  revived  by  the  new  regulations,  which 
omitted  to  specify  the  place  where  the  conferences  were  to  be 
held,  and  the  judges  and  inquisitors  each  summoned  the  others 
to  come  to  them.  The  judges  had  old  custom  and  royal  cedulas 
on  their  side,  but  the  inquisitors  refused  compliance  because 
the  orders  had  not  been  transmitted  to  them  through  the  Suprema 
which  they  claimed  was  requisite  to  their  validity,  and  thus 
important  cases,  both  civil  and  criminal,  remained  undecided, 
to  the  great  injury  of  individuals  and  the  public.  Moved  by  the 
complaints  thus  occasioned,  Philip  III,  in  a  cedula  of  November 
19,  1618,  ordered  that  the  conferences  be  held  in  the  vice-regal 
palace,  where  the  senior  judge  was  to  have  precedence  over  the 
inquisitor,  and  this  was  repeated  in  a  ce*dula  to  the  court  of  Lima, 
May  28,  1621,  but  again  the  inquisitors  of  both  Mexico  and 
Peru  refused  obedience  on  the  same  pretext  as  before.  Thus 
cases  continued  undecided  until  the  urgency  of  the  Council  of 
Indies  led  Philip  IV  to  consult  both  councils  and,  in  1636,  he 
ordered  that  the  judge  and  inquisitor  should  meet  before  the 
viceroy,  the  one  who  was  senior  in  office  taking  the  right  hand.2 
This  compromise  did  not  suit  the  pretensions  of  the  Holy  Office 
for  precedence  and  it  gained  the  victory  in  a  ce*dula  of  May  30, 
1640,  which  recites  that,  after  many  conferences,  it  was  deter- 
mined that  the  senior  judge  must  go  to  the  Inquisition,  where 
the  senior  inquisitor  was  to  have  precedence,  when  the  compe- 
tencia  was  to  be  settled  under  the  provisions  of  the  Concordia  of 
1610.3  Apparently  this  assumption  of  their  inferiority  was 
insufferable  to  the  judges,  for  no  formal  competencia  occurred 
between  1602  and  1711.  Matters  in  dispute  were  occasionally 
referred  to  the  councils  in  Spain,  but  this  was  of  little  benefit 


1  Solorzani  op.  tit.,  Lib.  in,  cap.  xxiv,  n.  60. — MSS.  of  Royal  Library  of  Munich, 
Cod.  Hispan.  79. — Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  60,  fol.  1,  60,  66  sqq. 
*  Solorzano,  loc.  cit.,  n.  63-73. 
3  Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  17,  fol.  1. 


254  MEXICO 

for  it  was  usually  the  last  heard  of  the  case.1  To  appreciate 
fully  the  cruelty  of  all  this,  we  must  reflect  that  perhaps  some 
accused  person  or  unlucky  alguazil,  arrested  for  executing  the 
orders  of  his  superiors,  might  be  languishing  in  gaol  for  a  life-time, 
awaiting  the  settlement  of  a  conflict  of  jurisdiction  which  could 
never  be  settled. 

Whether  or  not  the  other  prescriptions  of  the  Concordia  of 
1610  were  better  observed  than  those  concerning  competencias 
it  would  be  difficult  to  determine,  but  the  presumption  is  adverse. 
At  all  events,  inquisitorial  ingenuity  was  constantly  devising 
new  methods  of  aggression  and  further  complaints  led  Philip  IV 
to  assemble  a  junta  of  two  members  of  each  council,  whose  con- 
ferences resulted  in  the  enactment  of  another  Concordia,  published 
April  11,  1633.  Many  of  its  clauses  relate  to  the  ever-present 
question  of  precedence,  which  need  not  detain  us  here,  except 
the  suggestive  one  that,  at  bull-fights  in  the  plaza,  the  first  courses 
are  to  be  performed  before  the  secular  authorities,  unless  the 
latter,  of  their  own  accord,  desire  that  honor  to  be  paid  to  the 
inquisitors.  Equally  suggestive  in  another  way  are  the  prescrip- 
tions that  commissioners  shall  treat  the  public  courteously  and 
that  inquisitors  shall  treat  the  judges  with  respect  and  shall 
cease  molesting  the  officers  of  the  royal  courts  with  censures  and 
summoning  and  detaining  them.  They  are  again  forbidden  to 
engage  in  trade  and  are  told  not  to  interfere  with  the  elections 
of  secular  officials  nor,  in  times  of  scarcity,  are  they  to  persecute 
with  excommunications  the  guards  in  charge  of  boats  bringing 
grain,  but  are  to  apply  to  the  viceroy,  who  will  promptly  supply 
their  wants.  The  prohibition  of  detaining  ships  is  repeated,  but 
they  are  allowed  to  grant  licences  for  sailing  and  for  individuals 
to  depart,  which  practically  amounted  to  the  same  thing.  The 
inquisitors  seem  to  have  gained  their  point  as  to  the  right  of  seiz- 
ing goods  and  materials  at  a  "just  price,"  for  this  is  allowed, 
subject  to  some  limitations.  The  inviolability  of  the  domicile 
of  inquisitors  is  admitted  in  the  provision  that  it  is  not  to  be  abused 

1  Munich,  MSS.,  Cod.  Hispan.  79. 


CONCOEDIA  OF  1633  255 

by  secreting  goods  to  the  prejudice  of  third  parties;  and,  in  the 
case  of  salaried  officials,  it  is  limited  by  a  clause  that  when  it  is 
necessary  for  officers  of  justice  to  enter  the  house  of  such  official, 
or  of  the  widow  of  one  during  her  widowhood,  notice  shall  first 
be  given  to  the  tribunal,  which  shall  appoint  one  of  its  ministers 
to  be  present,  with  an  appointee  of  the  viceroy  or  court  and,  if 
such  an  appointment  is  not  made  within  two  or  three  hours,  the 
entry  can  be  made  without  longer  waiting.  One  of  the  petty 
privileges  which  gave  rise  to  constant  exacerbation  is  indicated 
in  the  provision  that,  of  the  cattle  slaughtered  in  the  public 
shambles,  there  shall  be  given  weekly  the  chine  and  chitterlings 
of  ten  oxen — two  to  each  of  the  inquisitors,  one  to  the  alguazil 
and  secretaries,  one  to  the  receiver  and  notary  of  sequestrations, 
and  the  rest  to  the  poor  prisoners;  this  is  said  to  be  all  that  the 
tribunal  is  entitled  to  and  anything  more  must  be  paid  for,  nor 
shall  its  servants  take  the  chitterlings  and  sell  them.1 

Concordias  were  only  attempts  to  restrain  existing  abuses 
and  they  could  not  provide  for  the  perpetual  new  aggressions 
suggested  by  the  facile  weapon  of  excommunication  through 
which  the  Inquisition  could  overcome  the  resistance  of  the  secular 
authorities.  The  distribution  of  quicksilver,  for  instance,  to 
the  miners  was  a  matter  jealously  reserved  to  the  viceroy  and 
the  junta  of  the  treasury  but,  when  the  Inquisition  wanted  it  for 
some  mines  belonging  to  it  in  Zacatecas,  it  forced,  by  threats 
of  excommunication,  the  royal  officials  to  supply  its  demands. 
Viceroy  Mancera,  in  a  letter  of  December  8,  1666,  complains  of 
this  and  of  a  case  in  which  the  royal  treasurer  of  Guadalajara 
owed  a  personal  debt  to  the  tribunal  of  980  pesos  and  the  com- 
missioner there,  by  order  of  the  acting  inquisitor  and  visitador, 
Medina  Rico,  forced  the  auditor  of  the  treasury  to  pay  it  out  of 
the  royal  funds,  by  threats  of  excommunication  and  of  a  fine  of 
500  pesos.  Mancera  endeavored  by  courteous  remonstrance  to 
obtain  restitution  but,  after  the  inquisitors  had  insulted  him, 
he  only  succeeded  in  getting  600  pesos  returned.  In  reporting 

1  Recop.,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  xix,  ley  30. 


256  MEXICO 

these  matters  to  the  king,  the  Council  of  Indies  pointed  out 
forcibly  how  incompatible  with  subordination  and  good  govern- 
ment were  these  arbitrary  extensions  of  inquisitorial  jurisdiction 
over  matters  wholly  foreign  to  the  objects  of  its  institution.1 

Indeed,  the  existence  of  so  uncontrollable  and  disturbing  an 
element  goes  far  to  explain  the  ill-success  of  Spanish  colonial 
administration.  In  1615,  Fray  Isidro  Ordonez,  commissioner 
in  San  Francisco  del  Nuevo  Mexico,  under  pretext  of  a  fictitious 
order  from  the  tribunal,  gathered  a  band  of  soldiers  and  citizens, 
to  whom  inquisitorial  orders  were  supreme,  and  seized  Don 
Pedro  de  Peralta,  Governor  of  New  Mexico,  and  held  him  in  irons 
for  nine  months.  Peralta  managed  to  complain  to  the  tribunal, 
which  summoned  Ordonez  to  the  capital  and  assigned  to  him 
his  convent  for  a  prison,  but  Peralta  obtained  no  satisfaction 
beyond  a  declaration  that  there  had  been  no  cause  for  his  arrest, 
while  Ordonez,  in  place  of  the  severe  punishment  which  he  merited, 
was  permitted  to  attend  the  general  chapter  of  his  Order  in  Rome, 
as  procurator  of  the  province  of  Mexico.2  Another  Governor 
of  New  Mexico,  Diego  de  Pefialosa,  fared  even  worse  when,  for 
indiscreet  words  about  priests  and  inquisitors  and  expressions 
verging  on  blasphemy,  he  was  exposed  to  the  humiliation  of 
appearing  as  a  penitent  in  the  auto  de  fe  of  February  3,  1668 — 
thus  virtually  incapacitating  him  for  further  service.3  It  was 
not  without  grounds  that  the  Council  of  Indies,  in  1696,  addressed 
a  formal  remonstrance  to  Carlos  II,  recapitulating  a  long  array 
of  abuses  and  violences,  showing  the  impossibility  of  enforcing 
observance  of  the  Concordias  or  obedience  to  the  royal  commands. 
Prelates  and  governors  were  alike  sufferers  from  the  irrepressible 
audacity  which  admitted  no  responsibility  to  any  one,  so  long  as 
it  was  upheld  and  justified  by  the  Suprema  at  home,  and  the 
council  supplicated  the  king,  if  not  for  the  total  extinction  of 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  60,  fol.  199. 
8  Munich  MSS.,  Cod.  Hispan.  79. 


3  Medina,  p.  323.     Possibly  this  may  explain  his  treasonable  project  of  trans- 
f erring  the  northern  provinces  of  Mexico  to  France. 


QUARRELS  WITH  BISHOPS  257 

the  tribunal,  at  least  for  the  dismissal  of  the  officials.  Without 
some  thorough  change  the  retention  of  the  colonies  could  scarce 
be  hoped  for,  as  all  the  population  was  inspired  with  a  common 
hatred  arising  from  its  violence.1 

As  the  council  says,  prelates  were  as  liable  as  royal  officials 
to  be  subjected  to  the  lawless  action  of  the  tribunal.  There 
never  were  lacking  pretexts  for  quarrel.  In  1617  Archbishop 
Pedro  de  Villareal  fared  badly  in  a  rupture  caused  by  his  inserting 
in  an  edict  some  matters  which  the  tribunal  claimed  to  belong  to 
its  jurisdiction.  In  1623  Bishop  Bohorques  of  Oaxaca  had  the 
same  experience  because  he  styled  himself  Inquisidor  Ordinario. 
The  episcopate  of  Archbishop  Matheo  Sagade  Bugueiro,  from 
1655  to  1662,  was  a  succession  of  bitter  dissensions,  during  which 
Bernardino  de  Amezaga,  chief  notary  of  the  court  of  testaments, 
was  arrested  by  the  tribunal,  deprived  of  his  office  and  banished, 
while  Francisco  de  Bermeo,  contador  of  the  Santa  Cruzada,  was 
kept  long  in  prison,  fined  200  pesos  and  a  negro  slave  of  his  was 
sold  to  defray  it.  In  1658  the  archbishop  made  a  demand  that 
all  edicts  read  in  his  cathedral  must  first  be  shown  to  him  in  order 
to  satisfy  him  that  they  contained  nothing  that  invaded  his 
jurisdiction,  and  his  action  in  enforcing  this  claim  led  the  tribunal 
to  publish  a  manifesto  declaring  that,  under  the  bull  Si  de  pro- 
tegendis,  he  had  incurred  degradation  and  relaxation  to  the 
secular  arm.2 

There  was  one  case,  however,  in  which  the  tribunal  and  the 
Archbishop  of  Mexico  combined  for  the  persecution  of  a  bishop, 
for  Juan  de  Manozca,  the  archbishop  from  1643  to  1653,  was  cousin 
of  the  inquisitor  of  the  same  name.  The  saintly  Bishop  Juan  de 
Palafox  of  Puebla,  in  his  capacity  of  visitador  and  protector  of 
the  Indians,  incurred  the  enmity  of  the  archbishop  and  of  the 
Viceroy  Salvatierra,  and  an  occasion  of  gratifying  it  occurred 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  60,  fol.  362. 

2  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  946,  fol.  282,  360,  400. — For  el  Tribunal 
del  S.  Officio  de  Mexico  sobre  el  Impedimiento  que  a  puesto  D.  D.  Matheo  Sagade 
Bugueiro,  Arzobispo  de  la  dicha  Ciudad  (communicated  by  D.  Fergusson  Esqr.). 

17 


268  MEXICO 

when  he  undertook  to  guard  his  episcopal  jurisdiction  against  the 
encroachments  of  the  Jesuits.  They  appointed  jueces  conser- 
vadores  to  protect  their  interests  and  the  tribunal  rushed  eagerly 
into  the  fray,  with  which  it  had  absolutely  no  right  to  intervene.1 
It  ordered  the  suppression  of  the  writings  and  edicts  of  Palafox 
and  forbade  any  interference  with  those  of  the  conservators;  it 
sent  a  commissioner  to  Puebla  who  terrorized  the  community 
by  arresting  prominent  priests  and  citizens  of  the  bishop's  party, 
parading  them  through  the  streets  in  chains  and  sending  them 
to  Mexico,  where  they  were  thrown  into  the  secret  prison,  thus 
inflicting  indelible  disgrace  on  them  and  their  posterity.  In 
spite  of  the  exemption  of  Indians  from  inquisitorial  jurisdiction, 
he  flogged  nearly  to  death,  with  four  hundred  lashes,  an  unfortu- 
nate Indian  who,  at  the  command  of  a  citizen,  had  taken  down 
one  of  the  conservators'  edicts.  Palafox  was  advised  that  he 
too  would  be  arrested  and  fled  to  the  mountains,  where  he  lay 
concealed  for  several  months.2  When,  in  1647,  he  appealed 
to  the  Suprema,  powers  were  sent  to  the  Bishop  of  Oaxaca  to 
investigate  and  report,  but  Archbishop  Manozca  threw  every 
impediment  in  his  way  and,  in  his  capacity  of  visitador  of  the 

1  The  visitador  Medina  Rico  characterizes  without  reserve  this  unjustifiable 
action  of  the  tribunal  "sin  causa,  motivo,  ni  razon  alguna,  se  introdujeron  a 
inmensos  procedimientos  en  la  materia,  y  esto  no  con  igualdad  y  justicia,  sino 
con  manifiesta  pasion  contra  el  dicho  sefior  Obispo,  su  provisor,  criados,  allegados 
y  afectos."  They  represented  to  Viceroy  Salvatierra  "que  era  sospechoso  en  la 
fe  y  tizon  ardiente  del  innerno  y  otras  cosas  gravisimas  semejantes  a  las  referidas." 
—Medina,  pp.  241,  242. 

3  Obras  de  Juan  de  Palafox  y  Mendoza,  Tom.  I,  Prolegom.;  T.  XI,  pp.  241,  289, 
328,  466-7  (Madrid,  1762).  The  fullest  account,  however,  of  the  arbitrary  pro- 
ceedings of  the  Inquisition  is  contained  in  a  letter,  omitted  for  cause  from  his 
collected  works,  written  from  Chiapa,  August  10,  1647,  to  the  Inquisitor-general 
Arce  y  Reynoeo.  It  was  printed  by  Puigblanch,  Cadiz,  1813,  and  by  Medina, 
pp.  242-60. 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  at  this  time  the  Jesuits  were  laying  the  foundation 
of  their  curious,  autocratic  empire  of  Paraguay,  by  a  quarrel  with  Bernardino  de 
Cardenas,  Bishop  of  Asuncion,  known  CvS  el  Padre  de  los  Indios.  To  prevent  his 
visiting  their  missions  they  drove  him  by  force  of  arms  from  his  episcopal  sec. 
The  struggle  lasted  from  1644  to  1660,  when  the  Holy  See  decided  in  favor  of  the 
bishop. — Coleccion  de  Documentos  tocantes  d  la  Persecucion  contra  D.  Fr 
Bernardino  de  Cardenas,  Madrid,  1768. 


CASE  OF  JUAN  DE  LA  CAMAEA  259 

Inquisition,  assumed  to  annul  his  commission.  He  appealed  to 
the  Bishop  of  Yucatan,  then  Governor  of  New  Spain,  and  to 
the  Audiencia  for  support,  but  the  archbishop  threatened  to 
excommunicate  them  all  and  they  prudently  declined  the  con- 
flict. Palafox  represents  to  the  Suprema  that  his  life  was  in 
danger  and  he  begs  to  be  allowed  to  return  to  Spain.1  The  com- 
bination of  the  archbishopric  and  Inquisition,  under  the  two 
Manozcas,  evidently  held  the  whole  land  in  its  grasp,  and  no  one 
was  hardy  enough  to  oppose  it.  Palafox  was  obliged  to  abandon 
Mexico,  but  he  eventually  secured  a  decision  in  his  favor  on  an 
appeal  to  Rome. 

An  episode  of  this  case  is  worth  recounting  in  some  detail,  not 
only  as  illustrating  inquisitorial  methods  but  as  a  rare  instance 
of  a  victim  obtaining  a  measure  of  satisfaction.  Doctor  Juan  de 
la  Camara,  a  canon  of  the  cathedral,  was  a  man  of  noble  birth, 
proud  of  his  unblemished  limpieza,  and  his  appointment  as  visi- 
tador  of  the  see  of  Guadalajara  indicates  the  estimation  in  which 
he  was  held  by  his  superiors.  Unfortunately  he  was  a  friend 
and  correspondent  of  Palafox.  When,  in  1646,  a  bitter  libel 
was  circulated  against  the  latter,  one  of  the  judges  of  the  Audien- 
cia, Alonso  Gonzalez  de  Villalba,  was  included  in  it.  Palafox 
endured  the  attack  in  silence  and  endeavored  to  make  Villalba 
follow  his  example,  but  the  latter  was  so  incensed  that  he  wrote 
a  reply  in  which  he  handled  roughly  the  inquisitor  Manozca. 
He  showed  it  to  his  neighbor  Camara,  who  returned  it  without 
comment  and  said  nothing  about  it  except  to  Don  Antonio  Urrutia 
de  Vergara,  to  whom  he  mentioned  it  in  order  that  he  might  tell 
the  archbishop,  and  to  a  Dona  Catalina  de  Diosdado,  to  whom 
he  merely  said  that  he  had  seen  two  scandalous  papers  and 
that,  if  the  author  confessed  to  him,  he  would  not  absolve 
him. 

There  was  a  chance  that  among  his  papers  something  might  be 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  38,  fol.  64. 

We  shall  meet  Archbishop  Juan  de  Manozca  hereafter  in  his  earlier  capacity 
of  Inquisitor  of  Cartagena,  where  he  earned  an  infamous  notoriety. 


260  MEXICO 

found  to  compromise  Palafox,  so  an  order  of  arrest  with  seques- 
tration of  property  was  made  out,  February  7,  1647.  At  eight 
o'clock  in  the  morning  Camara  was  roused  from  his  bed  and  taken 
in  his  own  carriage  to  the  secret  prison,  where  he  was  confined 
in  a  cell  of  which  the  window  had  been  blocked  up,  so  that  the 
single  candle  to  which  he  was  restricted  was  his  only  light  by 
day  and  night.  Here  he  was  kept  incomunicado  for  twenty  days. 
After  the  tenth  day,  however,  on  which  he  was  examined,  the 
obstructions  were  removed  from  the  window  and,  after  the 
twentieth,  his  brother,  Fray  Diego,  and  some  other  friends  were 
permitted  to  see  him  on  obtaining  a  special  licence  for  each  visit. 
Meanwhile  his  papers  had  been  carried  off  to  the  tribunal,  without 
being  inventoried  as  required  by  the  Instructions;  on  the  day 
after  his  arrest  his  household  effects  were  inventoried  and  placed 
in  the  hands  of  the  receiver,  Juan  Gonzalez  de  Castro,  as  deposi- 
tory, but  they  were  not  removed  from  the  house  and  no  care  was 
taken  to  ensure  their  safety. 

At  nightfall  of  March  15th  he  was  taken  back  to  his  house 
and  told  that  it  was  henceforth  to  be  his  prison,  under  pain  of 
excommunication  and  a  thousand  ducats.  On  April  1st  his 
prison  was  enlarged  to  the  city,  under  the  same  penalties,  and  he 
was  enabled  to  resume  his  duties  at  the  cathedral.  Of  course 
the  immurement  in  the  secret  prison,  with  sequestration  of 
property,  of  so  prominent  an  ecclesiastic,  caused  a  general  sen- 
sation; it  was  at  the  height  of  the  prosecution  of  the  Judaizers 
and  the  inevitable  conclusion  was  that  they  had  implicated  him, 
so  that  a  stain  was  cast  upon  his  honor  which  no  subsequent 
exculpation  could  wholly  efface.  His  papers  were  withheld  from 
him;  his  house  had  been  richly  furnished,  with  abundance  of 
silver  plate  and  linen,  much  of  which  had  disappeared,  and  he 
seems  to  have  deplored  especially  the  loss  of  eighteen  ounces  of 
amber.  His  trial  remained  unconcluded  and  his  repeated  appli- 
cations for  a  decision  and  for  the  restoration  of  missing  property 
were  filed  away  without  action.  His  only  hope  of  escape  from 
prolonged  and  intolerable  suspense  lay  in  appealing  to  the 


CASE  OF  JUAN  DE  LA  CAMARA  261 

Suprema.  The  inquisitors  had  already  sought  to  prejudice  it 
against  him  for,  in  a  letter  of  May  20th,  they  spoke  of  the  incredible 
efforts  and  diabolical  means  employed  to  intimidate  them  from 
the  performance  of  their  duty  in  the  matter  of  Palafox;  Camara 
was  an  accomplice  of  Villalba  in  publishing  the  libel;  he  had 
perjured  himself  in  his  confessions  and  might  be  assumed  to  be 
the  author  of  the  worst  passages  in  it.  In  spite  of  this  the 
Suprema,  by  a  decree  of  September  28,  1647,  ordered  his  release, 
on  the  security  of  his  oath,  and  the  sequestration  of  his  property 
to  be  removed. 

Camara  succeeded  in  secretly  obtaining  from  the  king  an  order, 
November  16,  1647,  permitting  him  to  go  to  Spain,  but  he  was 
impoverished  and  sent  his  brother,  Fray  Diego,  to  act  for  him. 
The  mission  occupied  Diego  for  several  years,  but  he  finally  pro- 
cured from  the  Suprema  a  commission  to  the  Inquisitor  Higuera 
to  try  the  case  promptly  for,  during  all  this  time,  it  had  been  held 
suspended  over  Camara's  head.  This  was  presented,  February  15, 
1650,  and,  on  the  following  July  12th,  Higuera,  who  was  at  odds 
with  Manozca,  rendered  a  sentence  acquitting  him  and  restoring 
him  to  his  previous  good  fame,  so  that  his  arrest  should  work 
no  prejudice  to  him  or  to  his  kindred  and  their  descendants; 
also  that  the  chapter  should  pay  him  all  the  accrued  fruits  of 
his  prebend  and  that  his  papers  and  property  should  be  returned 
to  him.  From  this  Camara  appealed  to  the  Suprema,  which 
confirmed  it,  July  7,  1651 ;  then  the  fiscal  of  the  Suprema  appealed 
and  it  was  again  confirmed,  July  31st.  The  whole  prosecution 
was  thus  stamped  as  being  malicious  and  groundless,  but  never- 
theless Camara  in  vain  endeavored  to  regain  possession  of  his 
papers  and  of  his  missing  effects. 

Archbishop  Manozca  died  in  1653;  the  affair  of  Palafox  had 
created  no  little  scandal  in  Spain  and,  in  1654,  a  new  visitador, 
Pedro  de  Medina  Rico,  was  sent  out  with  instructions  especially 
to  investigate  it.  Camara  promptly  set  forth  his  grievances,  in 
September,  in  a  complaint  against  Estrada  and  Higuera — for 
apparently  Manozca,  as  the  subject  of  the  libel,  had  not  sat  in 


262  MEXICO 

the  trial.  On  December  1st  he  made  his  formal  charges  in  a 
criminal  action  against  them,  laying  his  damages  at  12,000  pesos, 
which  he  claimed  to  be  the  amount  which  the  affair  had  cost 
him  in  losses  and  expenses.  It  was  a  bold  undertaking  and 
probably  unexampled,  and  he  found  it  impossible  to  secure  the 
necessary  legal  assistance  for,  on  January  20,  1655,  he  represented 
that  none  of  the  procurators  of  the  Audiencia  would  serve  him, 
wherefore  he  prayed  for  an  order  on  Juan  de  Escobar  to  appear 
for  him.  It  was  granted  and  enforced  with  a  penalty  of  fifty 
pesos,  under  pressure  of  which  Escobar  took  charge  of  the  case. 
In  the  same  way  his  witnesses  refused  to  appear  until  he  procured 
orders  on  them,  with  censures  for  disobedience.  The  action 
went  slowly  on  through  its  various  stages;  the  inquisitors  made 
no  effort  to  justify  what  they  had  done  and  confined  their  defence 
to  alleging  that  the  affair  was  a  cosa  juzgada,  which  could  not  be 
reopened,  and  to  interjecting  appeals  to  the  Suprema  at  every 
adverse  interlocutory  decree.  It  was  not  until  May  31,  1656, 
that  Medina  Rico  pronounced  sentence  to  the  effect  that  Camara 
had  proved  his  case  completely  and  that  Estrada  and  Higuera 
had  alleged  nothing  to  palliate  their  grave  offence,  the  punishment 
of  which  he  reserved  for  future  decision.  As  to  what  affected  the 
interest  of  the  plaintiff,  he  condemned  them  jointly  and  severally 
to  pay  him  two  thousand  pesos.  The  receiver,  or  depository, 
was  ordered  to  restore  to  him  everything  shown  in  the  inventory 
and,  if  it  appeared  that,  articles  were  not  deposited  with  him, 
the  inquisitors  must  make  them  good  under  penalty  of  a  thousand 
pesos.  From  this  the  inquisitors  appealed  and,  after  protracted 
argument,  Rico  suspended  the  order  to  pay  the  two  thousand 
pesos  until  the  Suprema  should  decide  the  appeal,  but  that  the 
rest  of  the  sentence  should  be  executed  without  awaiting  its 
action.  Then  followed  a  long  and  confused  litigation  with  the 
executor  of  the  receiver  de  Castro,  who  had  been  dead  for  many 
years  and  his  estate  distributed.  The  documents  preserved  end 
with  November  14,  1657,  at  which  time  they  were  made  up  for 
transmission  to  the  Suprema  and  what  was  its  final  decision 


MILITA  R  Y  SEE  VICE  263 

cannot  be  told.1  It  is  evident  that  Camara  obtained  little  com- 
pensation for  his  sufferings,  but  at  least  he  had  the  satisfaction 
of  seeing  his  persecutors  punished,  although  inadequately,  for 
official  offenders  were  always  treated  tenderly  by  the  Inquisition. 
Medina  Rico,  as  the  result  of  his  visitation,  formulated  hundreds 
of  charges  against  them,  collectively  and  individually,  and  ren- 
dered sentence,  May  17,  1662,  in  the  audience-chamber,  where  all 
the  officials  were  assembled.  Estrada  was  condemned  to  severe 
reprimand,  to  a  fine  of  1500  pesos  and  to  four  years'  suspension, 
though,  as  he  had  died  October  26, 1661,  the  penalty  fell  only  on 
his  heirs.  Higuera  was  sentenced  to  a  fine  of  a  hundred  pesos 
and  two  years'  suspension,  which  he  endured  until  May  16,  1664. 
Manozca  was  visited  more  heavily  with  a  fine  of  1300  pesos  and 
nine  years  of  suspension.2  This  he  could  afford  to  disregard  for, 
in  the  autumn  of  1661,  he  had  been  provided  with  the  bishopric 
of  Santiago  de  Cuba  whence,  in  1666,  he  was  transferred  to  that 
of  Guatemala  and  finally,  in  1675,  he  obtained  the  wealthy  see 
of  Puebla,  from  which  he  had  driven  Palafox.  Retributive  jus- 
tice, however,  at  last  overtook  him,  for  he  died  before  he  could  take 
possession.3  Such  were  the  men  who  largely  filled  the  tribunals 
and  episcopates  of  the  Colonies. 

Among  the  privileges  claimed  by  the  Inquisition  was  exemp- 
tion from  military  service.  This  was  strictly  limited  by  the  Con- 
cordia  of  1633.  Officials  holding  commissions  from  the  inquisitor- 
general  were  exempted  from  appearing  in  the  general  musters, 
but  familiars  were  not,  unless  actually  on  duty  for  the  tribunal 
and,  if  the  enemy  was  in  sight,  all  were  liable  to  service,  save 
those  necessary  to  guard  the  papers  and  records  of  the  tribunal, 
to  whom  certificates  were  to  be  given.  As  might  be  expected, 
however,  little  respect  was  paid  to  these  provisions.  In  1685, 
the  alcalde  of  Puebla  called  a  muster  of  the  citizens  to  march 


1  MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr.     The  sentence  in  this  case  is  so  unusual  that 
I  give  the  essential  portion  of  it  in  the  Appendix. 
1  Medina,  p.  266.  3  Gams,  Series  Episcoporum,  a.  vv. 


264  MEXICO 

to  the  succor  of  Campeachy.  Hipolito  del  Castillo,  alguazil  and 
familiar,  claimed  exemption,  to  which  he  was  clearly  not  entitled. 
The  alcalde  threatened  to  send  him  on  a  mule  to  Campeachy 
and  in  effect  threw  him  into  prison,  placed  his  head  in  the  pillory 
and  made  him  pay  a  fine  of  120  pesos.  The  commissioner  at 
Puebla  defended  Castillo  and,  on  appeal  to  the  Inquisition,  it 
ordered  the  money  to  be  returned.  Again,  in  1718,  when  eight 
companies  of  merchants  were  formed  in  Puebla,  by  order  of  the 
viceroy,  to  make  the  rounds  of  the  city  and  drive  out  malefactors, 
Martinez  de  Castro,  a  familiar  and  trader,  was  enrolled;  he  pro- 
tested and  appealed  to  the  Inquisition,  which  ordered  his  dis- 
charge, in  which  the  authorities  immediately  acquiesced.1 

The  inquisitorial  function  of  censorship  was  by  no  means 
neglected.  Even  before  the  establishment  of  the  tribunal,  it 
was  felt  necessary  to  guard  the  faithful  from  the  infection  of 
heretical  books  and,  in  1561,  Inquisitor-general  Valdes  sent  to 
Archbishop  Montufar  a  commission  empowering  him  to  examine 
the  book-shops  for  that  purpose.2  This  conveyed  no  censorial 
power,  but  Paramo  proudly  asserts  that,  almost  at  the  inception 
of  the  Holy  Office,  calificadores  were  appointed  who  exercised 
a  most  vigilant  supervision  over  all  books  introduced  into  the 
colony,  even  over  those  which  had  passed  the  examination  of 
the  Suprema  itself,  and  who  occasionally  had  the  satisfaction 
of  showing  that  books  widely  circulated  in  Spain  required  expur- 
gation. In  fact,  a  letter  of  the  Suprema  respecting  the  Index 
then  in  preparation  shows  that,  as  early  as  1573,  censures  of 
books  were  received  from  Mexico.  The  position  of  calificador, 
like  that  of  inquisitor,  seems  to  have  been  a  stepping-stone  to 
the  bishop's  chair,  for  the  first  one  was  Domingo  de  Salazar, 
promoted,  in  1581,  to  the  archiepiscopate  of  the  Philippines; 
the  second  was  Bartolome*  de  Ledesma,  who  in  1581  became 
Bishop  of  Oaxaca,  and  the  third  was  Pedro  de  Ribera,  who  in 


1  Munich  MSS.,  Cod.  Hispan,  79. 

a  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  940,  fol.  2. 


CENSORSHIP  265 

1594  was  elected  Bishop  of  Panama,  but  died  on  the  road  to  take 
possession.1  Apparently  the  office  was  one  not  always  easy  to 
fill.  In  a  letter  of  September  1,  1655,  the  tribunal  informed  the 
Suprema  that  it  was  in  need  of  correctors  of  books  and  califica- 
dores  and  it  sent  the  genealogy  of  Padre  Juan  Hortiz,  Rector  of 
the  Jesuit  College,  as  a  fit  person,  though  he  had  not  studied 
theology;  the  tribunal  of  Logrono  thereupon  reported  favorably 
as  to  his  limpieza  and,  on  November  11,  1659,  after  four  years 
of  delay,  the  commission  for  him  was  sent.2  It  will  be  seen  from 
all  this  that  the  Mexican  Inquisition  exercised  an  independent 
function  of  censorship;  the  earliest  printing-press  in  the  New 
World  was  established  in  the  city  of  Mexico  and  its  products 
were  supervised  by  the  tribunal,  which  condemned  them,  when 
necessary,  without  awaiting  a  reference  to  distant  Spain.  Pro- 
hibitory edicts,  moreover,  emanating  from  the  home  censorship, 
were  duly  published  from  every  parish  pulpit  between  the  Carib- 
bean and  the  Pacific.3 

As  was  the  case  in  Spain,  censorship  was  not  confined  to  litera- 
ture but  extended  to  works  of  art  which  might  offend  sensitive- 
ness either  of  modesty  or  of  veneration.  The  degree  to  which 
this  might  interfere  with  affairs  of  daily  life  depended  upon  the 
discretion  of  the  tribunal,  as  was  instanced  by  an  edict  of  March 
2,  1600.  This  prohibited  all  crosses,  heads  of  Christ,  the  Virgin 
and  the  saints  and  scenes  from  sacred  history  carved  or  engraved 
or  painted  or  embroidered  on  furniture,  bed-clothing,  napery, 
utensils  of  all  kinds,  or  other  places  where  these  sacred  symbols 
might  be  exposed  to  disrespect,  and  everything  of  the  kind  was 
to  be  surrendered  for  the  erasure  of  the  images.  As  Spanish 


1  Paramo,  p.  243. — Archive  de  Simancas,  Lib.  940,  fol.  6. 

2  MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr. 

3  See  the  Author's  "Chapters  from  the  Religious  History  of  Spain,"  p.  73. 
There  was  no  little  scandal,  in  1768,  when  it  was  discovered  that  the  receiver 

of  the  tribunal,  Vicente  de  las  Heras  Serrano,  had  sold  for  850  pesos  to  the  Licen- 
tiate Juan  Jose  Azpeitia  a  number  of  the  prohibited  books  which  had  been  seized. 
No  great  damage  to  the  faith  could  have  ensued  if  they  were  all  like  Milton's 
Paradise  Lost,  for  the  possession  of  which  a  French  surgeon,  Carlos  Loret,  was 
forced  to  abjure  and  was  banished  to  Spain. — Medina,  p.  434, 


1 
266  MEXICO 

piety  had  luxuriated  in  the  use  of  such  emblems  wherever  possible, 
this  raised  a  cloud  of  questions,  which  Fray  Diego  Mufioz,  com- 
missioner at  Mechoacan,  endeavored  to  settle  in  instructions 
issued  to  his  delegate  at  Quere*taro.  Thus  branding-irons  for 
cattle  and  horses,  that  had  a  cross  on  them,  were  to  be  surrendered; 
as  for  beasts  already  so  branded,  the  marks  were  to  be  erased 
where  possible.  Men  tattooed  with  crosses  or  the  name  of  Jesus 
were  to  efface  them  within  fifteen  days.  Thimbles  so  adorned, 
if  of  gold  or  silver,  were  to  be  returned  after  filing  off  the  symbols. 
Moulds  for  pastry  with  sacred  heads  were  allowable,  because  the 
pastry  was  eaten  and  not  treated  with  indecency,  and  it  was  the 
same  with  tapestries  and  wall-hangings.  That  the  opportunities 
afforded  by  this  decree  were  not  neglected  is  indicated  in  a  com- 
plaint to  the  tribunal  from  Juan  Rodriguez  of  Queretaro,  who 
relates  that  Fray  Francisco  de  Parra,  Guardian  of  the  Franciscan 
convent,  under  orders  from  Munoz,  had  seized  and  carried  off  to 
the  convent  a  bedstead  of  gilt  wood,  costing  500  pesos,  because  it 
had  some  carved  heads,  which  were  not  of  Christ  or  angels;  also 
counterpanes,  pillows,  curtains,  towels,  etc.,  because  they  had 
crosses  or  the  word  Jesus  embroidered  on  them,  and  finger-rings 
with  five  stones  set  as  a  cross.  Others  had  suffered  in  the  same 
way,  and  Rodriguez  prayed  for  the  restoration  of  the  articles.1 

Incident  to  the  censorship  was  the  visita  de  navios,  or  search 
of  all  vessels  on  their  arrival,  regarded  as  an  indispensable  duty 
to  prevent  the  importation  of  forbidden  books  and  the  immi- 
gration of  suspected  heretics  and  Judaizers,  as  well  as  to  ascertain 
whether,  during  the  voyage,  any  one  on  board  had  committed 
acts  subjecting  him  to  inquisitorial  jurisdiction.  As  in  Spain, 
this  performance  inevitably  led  to  friction  with  the  secular 
authorities  of  the  sea-ports.  As  early  as  1584  there  is  a  prose- 
cution of  Hernando  de  Moxica,  alcalde  mayor,  and  of  Diego  de 
Yepes,  regidor  of  Vera  Cruz,  for  impeding  the  commissioner  in 

MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr. 

A  similar  prohibition  of  the  irreverent  use  of  crosses  and  images  is  embodied 
in  the  Peruvian  Edict  of  Faith  of  1641. — Adler,  The  Inquisition  in  Peru  (American 
Jewish  Historical  Society,  No.  12) 


VISIT  AS  DE  NA  VI08  267 

this  work  and  speaking  disrespectfully  of  it,  resulting  in  a  fine 
of  five  hundred  pieces  each,  with  excommunication  until  they 
should  withdraw  their  opposition.1  Of  course  it  was  difficult 
to  control  the  officials  of  the  tribunal  in  the  matter  of  fees  and 
to  keep  the  peace  between  them  and  the  royal  representatives 
as  to  questions  of  precedence,  points  which  the  Concordia  of  1633 
endeavored  to  regulate  by  fixing  the  fee  at  four  pesos,  of  which 
two  accrued  to  the  commissioner  and  one  each  to  the  alguazil  and 
notary,  an  amount  never  to  be  exceeded,  no  matter  how  many 
assistants  might  be  employed,  while  existing  orders  were  to  be 
strictly  observed  as  to  their  concurrence  with  the  royal  officials.2 
Of  course  it  was  not  easy  for  the  Inquisition  to  maintain  super- 
vision over  so  extended  a  coast.  In  a  consulta  of  February  15, 
1620,  the  Suprema  informed  Philip  III  that  there  had  recently 
been  printed  in  Holland  large  numbers  of  Spanish  Bibles  to  be 
sent  to  the  colonies  and,  as  the  Inquisition  was  unable  to  prevent 
their  introduction  unaided,  the  king  was  asked  to  instruct  the 
royal  officials  to  exercise  greater  vigilance.  To  this  he  assented 
and  the  request  was  renewed,  June  28,  1629.  It  was  probably 
to  meet  this  that,  in  1633,  an  agreement  between  the  Suprema 
and  the  Council  of  Indies  permitted  the  appointment  of  an 
alguazil  in  Yucatan  to  aid  in  searching  the  ships  arriving  at  the 
ports.3 

With  the  advent  of  the  Bourbon  dynasty,  there  occurs,  in 
Mexico  as  in  Spain,  a  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  secular  authori- 
ties to  restrain  the  overbearing  petulance  and  audacity  of  the 
Holy  Office.  It  is  true  that  the  tribunal  obtained  a  victory  in 
1712,  in  a  quarrel  with  the  Royal  Audiencia  which  had  prosecuted 
its  notary,  and  it  was  so  overjoyed  that  it  hastened  to  communi- 
cate the  fact  to  the  tribunal  of  Lima  so  that  it  might  serve  as  a 
precedent.  It  related  how  the  royal  cedula  of  1640,  repeated  in 

1  Munich  MSS.,  Cod.  Hispan.  79.     See  "Chapters  from  Spain,"  p.  86,  for  instruc- 
tions to  the  commissioners  in  the  performance  of  this  duty. 

2  Recop.,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  xix,  ley  30. 

8  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  20,  fol.  10;  Lib.  40,  fol.  44. 


268  MEXICO 

1667  and  1701,  had  been  strictly  observed,  when  the  senior 
judge  came  to  the  competencia  and  occupied  the  lowest  seat 
and  the  decision  was  that  the  notary  was  entitled  to  the  fuero  of 
the  Holy  Office.1  Though  competencias  thus  commenced  to 
reappear  they  did  not  always  end  so  satisfactorily.  In  1722, 
Joseph  Freire  de  Somorostro,  commissioner  in  Zacatapan,  was 
fined  500  pesos  and  suspended  for  six  years  from  his  functions  as 
an  advocate  by  the  royal  court,  for  an  offence  against  its  author- 
ity. He  appealed  to  the  tribunal  which,  in  its  customary  threat- 
ening methods,  demanded  that  the  papers  in  the  case  be  delivered 
to  it  within  fifteen  days,  but  they  were  withheld.  It  succeeded 
better  in  the  case  of  Alonso  Diaz  de  la  Vega,  alguazil  of  Goamantla 
who,  in  1723,  was  concerned  with  his  son  in  a  quarrel,  in  which 
a  man  was  killed.  They  were  arrested  and  prosecuted,  but  the 
tribunal  interfered  vigorously,  obtained  possession  of  both  father 
and  son,  gave  notice  that  prosecutors  must  present  themselves 
within  eight  days  and,  as  none  appeared,  discharged  the  accused — 
thus  affording  convincing  proof  of  the  advantage  of  the  fuero 
to  criminals.  It  showed,  however,  a  juster  sense  of  the  limita- 
tions of  its  jurisdiction  in  another  case  of  the  same  year  which 
illustrates  the  tendency  of  its  officials  to  obstruct  the  secular 
authorities.  The  Castellan  of  Vera  Cruz  complained  to  the  viceroy 
of  the  commissioner,  Gregorio  de  Salinas,  who  had  assisted  the 
mutineers  of  the  fleet  in  demanding  their  pay  and  had  defended 
the  asylum  of  the  convent  of  San  Francisco,  in  which  they  had 
taken  refuge.  The  viceroy  forwarded  the  statement  to  the  tri- 
bunal, which  forthwith  ordered  the  commissioner  to  desist;  the 
Inquisition  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter;  if  he  had  assembled 
the  officials  of  the  Inquisition  with  their  badges  and  had  taken 
them  to  the  convent  to  defend  its  right  of  asylum,  he  had  done 
very  wrong  and  must  instruct  each  of  them,  before  a  notary,  to 
keep  aloof  and  he  must,  in  the  same  way,  withdraw  the  delegated 
power  given  to  the  superior  of  the  convent.  It  does  not  appear 
however  that  the  peccant  commissioner  was  punished  in  any  way 

1  MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr. 


DECADENCE  269 

for  this  inexcusable  prostitution  of  the  authority  of  the  Holy 
Office.  Another  case,  in  the  same  year,  illustrates  the  multi- 
farious ways  in  which  these  petty  local  officials  abused  the  mys- 
terious attributes  with  which  they  were  invested.  Valdes  la 
Vandera,  commissioner  of  Valle  de  Santa  Barbara,  claimed  fees 
for  all  interments  to  which  he  was  invited,  even  when  he  did  not 
wear  surplice  and  cap  as  ordered  by  the  Constitucion  Sinodal  and, 
not  content  with  this,  charged  double  fees ;  he  also  demanded  that, 
in  the  assemblies  of  Corpus,  San  Pedro  and  other  feasts  of  obli- 
gation, he  should  have  the  highest  place,  in  virtue  of  being 
commissioner.  The  clergy  complained  to  the  tribunal,  which 
condemned  his  pretensions  and  ordered  him  to  desist.1 

The  enlightened  despotism  of  Carlos  III  brought  increased 
tendency  to  curtail  the  privileges  of  the  Inquisition  and  to  curb 
its  audacity.  A  ce*dula  of  February  29,  1760,  declares  that  the 
titular  and  salaried  officials  shall  enjoy  the  fuero  only  as  defend- 
ants, in  both  civil  and  criminal  matters,  and  wholly  withdraws 
that  of  the  familiars.  Also  that  in  clear  and  notorious  cases 
there  shall  be  no  competencia,  but  that  the  viceroy,  as  the  per- 
sonal representative  of  the  sovereign,  shall  decide  what  is  fitting 
to  prevent  invasion  of  the  royal  jurisdiction.2  The  transitory 
liberalism  of  the  period  greatly  diminished  the  traditional  awe 
inspired  by  the  Inquisition.  About  the  year  1767,  it  had  a 
serious  conflict  with  the  Audiencia,  over  the  case  of  a  Doctor 
Bechi,  in  which  the  royal  fiscal,  during  his  argument,  treated  it 
with  scant  respect,  reciting  how  Charles  V  had  been  obliged  to 
limit  its  jurisdiction  in  Sicily,  how  the  reigning  monarch  had 
exiled  from  court  the  Inquisitor-general  Quint ano  Bonifaz,  and 
hinting  not  obscurely  that,  if  it  was  abolished,  substitutes  for  it 
could  be  found — all  of  which  was  made  the  subject  of  bitter,  and 
apparently  fruitless,  remonstrance  to  the  king  by  the  Suprema, 
in  a  consulta  of  February  29,  1768.  This  unprecedented  freedom 


1  Munich  MSS.,  Cod.  Hispan.  79. 

2  Note  to  Recop.,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  xix,  ley  29.      For  further  details  as  to  this  see 
below,  under  Peru. 


270  MEXICO 

of  speech  reveals  the  existence  of  a  belief  in  some  impending 
change,  and  this  was  stimulated  by  the  startling  expulsion  of 
the  Jesuits,  skilfully  managed  by  the  viceroy,  the  Marquis  de 
Croix,  June  25,  1767.  The  foundations  of  the  ecclesiastical 
structure  seemed  to  be  crumbling  and  there  arose  a  universally 
accredited  rumor  that  the  Inquisition  would  be  the  next  to  suffer. 
So  definite  did  this  become  that  the  day  was  fixed  for  September 
3d  and  the  precaution  taken  by  the  viceroy,  in  anticipation  of 
disturbance,  by  keeping  troops  under  arms  all  that  night,  espe- 
cially in  the  quarter  where  the  Inquisition  was  situated,  only 
strengthened  the  delusion.  So  firmly  rooted  was  this  that,  when 
the  night  passed  away  without  the  expected  event,  the  archbishop 
called  upon  the  viceroy  to  learn  for  himself  the  truth  of  the  belief 
that  the  suppression  had  only  been  postponed  until  certain  pend- 
ing trials  shoud  be  completed.1 

During  this  period  of  decadence  the  functions  of  the  tribunal, 
in  its  proper  sphere  of  action,  amounted  to  little  more  than 
punishing  a  few  bigamists,  so-called  sorcerers  and  soliciting  con- 
fessors. In  1702  it  reported  only  four  cases  pending — three  for 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  28,  fol.  272,  276. 

Obregon  (op.  cit.,  p.  227)  relates  an  anecdote  of  this  period  which  would  seem 
incompatible  with  the  existing  discredited  position  of  the  Inquisition.  One 
Ash  Wednesday,  when  the  canons  of  the  cathedral  called  upon  the  Marquis  de 
Croix,  as  customary,  to  present  him  with  ashes,  he  kept  them  waiting  in  his 
antechamber,  to  the  intense  indignation  of  those  dignified  personages.  They 
complained  to  the  inquisitors,  who  summoned  the  viceroy  to  appear  before  them. 
He  obeyed,  but  he  went  attended  by  a  guard  and  some  pieces  of  artillery.  He 
was  haughtily  received  until  he  took  out  his  watch  and  casually  remarked  that 
he  hoped  the  audience  would  be  brief  for,  if  he  was  not  back  in  the  street  in  ten 
minutes,  the  cannon  would  open  on  the  building  and  reduce  it  to  ruins.  The 
dignity  of  the  inquisitors  disappeared;  they  promptly  dismissed  him  and  were 
in  agony  as  he  leisurely  sauntered  forth. 

If  such  an  occurrence  took  place  it  is  attributable  with  more  verisimilitude  to 
t.':e  period  of  the  Marquis  de  Croix  in  Mexico  than  to  the  earlier  time  of  the  Mar- 
r.uis  de  Castelfuerte  in  Peru,  of  whom  a  precisely  similar  story  is  told,  except 
that  he  gave  the  tribunal  an  hour  for  consideration.  In  his  case  the  summons 
to  appear  is  ascribed  to  his  rough  treatment  of  the  Franciscans,  July  5,  1731, 
when  two  of  them  were  killed  in  a  disturbance  at  the  execution  of  Dr.  Joseph  de 
Antequera.— Palma,  Afiales  de  la  Inquisicion  de  Lima,  p.  184  (Madrid,  1898). 


DECADENCE  271 

bigamy  and  a  Jesuit,  Padre  Francisco  de  Figueroa,  for  what  was 
known  as  flagellation,  or  stripping  female  penitents  and  using  the 
discipline  on  them,  an  offence  akin  to  solicitation.1  Yet  in  an 
auto  of  1704  it  exhibited  eight  bigamists  and  two  sorcerers  and, 
in  one  of  1708,  it  had  thirteen  penitents  of  whom  five  were  biga- 
mists. There  was  an  exception  in  1712  when  it  had  the  fortune 
to  present  a  Judaizer  who  had  denounced  himself  and  begged 
for  mercy,  notwithstanding  which  he  was  condemned  to  appear 
in  an  auto  with  a  gag  and  to  irremissible  prison  and  sanbenito 
for  life.  In  1712-13  there  were  eleven  convictions  for  solicitation 
and  in  1722  an  auto  with  twelve  penitents,  of  whom  nine  were 
bigamists,  followed  soon  afterwards  with  five  cases  of  solicitation. 
So  it  went  on,  gradually  diminishing  and  affording  less  and  less 
justification  for  the  existence  of  the  tribunal  with  its  large 
revenues,  though  when  it  had  an  opportunity  it  demonstrated 
that  it  retained  its  capacity  for  evil,  as  in  the  case  of  a  naval 
lieutenant,  Manuel  Germa  de  Bahamonde,  arrested  February  24, 
1735,  for  heretical  propositions  and,  after  nine  years  of  incar- 
ceration, pronounced  insane  in  1744,  when  he  was  sent  to  the 
castle  of  San  Juan  de  Ulua  pending  transmission  to  Spain.2 

After  1750  there  was  some  increase  in  business,  arising  from 
the  prevalence  of  blasphemy  and  irreligion  in  the  army,  especially 
in  the  regiments  of  foreigners,  and  cases  became  more  numerous 
among  foreign  residents  accused  of  heresy  and  free-thinking.  It 
was  .doubtless  owing  to  this  that  Fernando  VI,  in  a  decree  of 
December  31,  1756,  imposed  the  death  penalty  on  recruits  who 
pretended  Catholicism  in  order  to  enlistment — a  severity  modified 
in  1765  by  Carlos  III  to  expulsion  from  the  kingdom.3  In  spite 
of  these  measures,  the  tribunal,  in  a  letter  of  April  28,  1766, 
complained  of  the  number  of  foreigners  sent  to  Mexico  among 
the  troops — their  disseminating  the  heresies  of  Luther  and  Calvin 
and  of  total  irreligion,  and  their  justification  of  England,  thus 
diminishing  the  horror  and  detestation  felt  by  the  natives  for 


1  Medina,  p.  338.  2  Ibidem,  pp.  339-45. 

8  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Legajo  1465,  fol.  81. 


272  MEXICO 

the  English,  which  it  was  so  desirable  to  maintain.  The  Suprema 
represented  this  to  Carlos,  who  thereupon  ordered  that  no  soldiers 
should  be  sent  to  the  Indies  who  were  not  assuredly  Catholics.1 

The  increasing  discredit  into  which  the  tribunal  had  fallen  and 
the  widely  spread  rumors,  as  we  have  seen,  of  its  approaching 
suppression,  seem  to  have  stimulated  it  to  a  recrudescence  of 
activity  in  an  effort  to  assert  its  continued  existence.  It  cele- 
brated an  auto,  September  6,  1767,  with  four  culprits — one  of 
them,  Maria  Josefa  Pineda  Morales,  for  bigamy,  who  had  been 
arrested  as  long  before  as  in  1760.  Then  on  March  13,  1768,  it 
held  another  with  seventeen  penitents.  Cases  of  solicitation 
also  became  more  frequent  as  the  century  drew  to  its  close.2 
A  new  field  of  activity,  moreover,  was  opened  to  it  by  the  out- 
break of  the  French  Revolution,  when  the  propaganda  of  the 
rights  of  man  increased  the  importance  of  the  Inquisition  as  an 
agency  of  repression.  Already,  in  1770,  an  edict  ordered  the 
denunciation  within  six  days  of  confessors  who  should  use  the 
confessional  to  encourage  ideas  contrary  to  the  submission  due 
to  the  sovereign.  The  accession  of  the  reactionary  Carlos  IV 
and  the  dread  of  revolutionary  principles  began  to  afford  a  harvest 
of  cases  in  which  politics  had  more  to  do  than  religion.  There 
were  many  Frenchmen  in  Mexico  following  their  trades;  they 
were  naturally  partizans  of  the  new  order  of  things ;  their  influence 
was  dreaded  for  they  spread  their  opinions  among  the  people 
and  the  organization  and  methods  of  the  Inquisition  rendered  it 
the  most  efficient  instrument  for  the  detection  and  punishment 
of  liberalism.3 

A  typical  example  was  that  of  two  Frenchmen,  the  Capitan 
Jean  Marie  Murgier  and  Doctor  Joseph  Fra^ois  Morel,  accused 
of  a  conspiracy  to  cause  a  revolution  and  arrested  in  1794.  Mur- 
gier feigned  sickness  and,  when  visited  by  Dr.  Jose*  Francisco 
Rada,  he  asked  the  gaoler  for  a  glass  of  water  and  during  his 
absence  blocked  the  door  with  his  trunk.  Then  he  seized  Rada's 


1  Medina,  pp.  358-63. — Archive  de  Simancae,  Inquisicion,  Legajo  1465,  fol.  81. 
1  Medina,  pp.  365,  388.  s  Ibidem,  pp.  396,  432. 


POLITICAL  FUNCTIONS  273 

sword  and  declared  that  he  would  kill  both  him  and  himself 
unless  the  tribunal  would  liberate  him  with  a  full  acquittal  and 
furnish  him  with  a  pair  of  loaded  pistols.  The  confusion  of  the 
tribunal  was  great;  parleying  went  on  from  10.15  A.M.  to  4.30 
P.M.,  when  it  was  decided  to  break  down  the  door.  Guards  with 
hatchets  attacked  it  and  Murgier  ran  himself  through  with  the 
sword.  His  comrade  Morel  cut  his  throat  with  a  pair  of  snuffers 
February  11,  1795.  They  were  prosecuted  after  death  and  fur- 
nished occasion  for  the  last  public  auto,  August  9th  of  that  year, 
where  their  effigies  and  bones  were  burnt  as  those  of  heretics, 
deists  and  materialists.  At  the  same  auto  there  figured  the  first 
Judaizer  for  many  years — Rafael  Gil  Rodriguez,  a  cleric  in  the 
lower  orders,  who  had  been  arrested  October  9,  1788.  He  proved 
exceedingly  obstinate  and  was  sentenced  to  relaxation  on  Feb- 
ruary 9,  1792,  after  which  he  was  held  awaiting  an  auto.  His 
resolution  failed  on  the  morning  of  the  fatal  day,  he  professed 
repentance,  was  reconciled,  and  thus  saved  the  Inquisition  the 
shame  of  burning  a  fellow-creature  alive  at  the  close  of  the  eight- 
eenth century.  The  other  penitents  were  Jean  Langouran  of 
Bordeaux,  who  was  reconciled  for  Lutheranism  and  atheism, 
and  Jean  Lausel  of  Montpellier  who  abjured  de  levi  for  suspicion 
of  Free-Masonry.1 

It  was  not  however  Frenchmen  alone  who  suffered  for  their 
political  opinions.  Jose  Antonio  Rojas  was  denounced  by  two 
ladies,  in  correspondence  with  whom  he  had  expressed  his  liberal- 
ism too  freely.  In  September,  1804,  he  was  condemned,  as  a 
formal  heretic  and  materialist,  to  reclusion  in  the  College  of  the 
Propaganda  Fide  at  Pachuca,  but  he  escaped  to  the  United 
States  where  he  relieved  his  feelings  in  a  tremendous  pamphlet 
against  the  Holy  Office,  which  was  duly  prohibited  in  an  edict 
of  March  6,  1807.  The  distinguished  publicists,  Juan  Wenceslao 
Bosquera  and  Jose  Joaquin  Fernandez  de  Lizardi,  known  as 
El  Pensador  Mexicano,  were  also  prosecuted  for  writings  that 
evinced  too  ardent  a  spirit  of  patriotism.  It  was  also  doubtless 

1  Medina,  pp.  387,  397-405. 
18 


274  MEXICO 

for  offences  of  the  same  nature  that  Fray  Juan  Antonio  de 
Olabarrieta  was  reconciled  for  atheism  in  1803,  and  his  san- 
benito  was  suspended  in  the  cathedral,  for  the  charge  of  atheism 
or  any  kindred  form  of  speculation  was,  as  we  have  seen,  a 
convenient  one  to  bring  political  liberalism  under  inquisitorial 
jurisdiction.1 

Under  the  pressure  of  the  time  the  censorship  was  sharpened 
with  special  rigor  and  severity.  A  curious  instance  of  the  strict- 
ness with  which  the  laws  against  prohibited  books  were  enforced 
is  afforded  by  an  episode,  in  1806,  of  the  Louisiana  Purchase. 
As  this  rendered  necessary  a  delimitation  of  the  boundary  between 
Mexico  and  the  United  States,  Carlos  IV  ordered  an  investigation 
and  report  from  the  viceroy,  who  employed  Fray  Melchor  de 
Talamantes  to  make  it.  He  found  it  necessary  to  consult  the 
works  of  Robertson  and  Raynal,  but  these  were  in  the  Index 
and  he  applied  to  the  Inquisition,  through  the  viceroy,  for  the 
requisite  licence,  saying  that,  although  the  books  were  detestable, 
the  information  they  contained,  and  especially  their  maps,  were 
important  for  the  public  service.  The  request  was  refused  and, 
as  a  compromise,  a  formal  commission  was  given  to  two  califi- 
cadores,  Fray  Jose*  Paredo  and  Fray  Jose  Pichardo,  to  examine 
the  dangerous  books  and  report  to  Talamantes  such  information 
on  the  subject  as  they  might  find.2  When  Spanish  diplomacy 
was  thus  hampered  by  such  scruples  it  is  no  cause  of  surprise 
that  the  eminent  historian  of  Mexico,  Lucas  Alaman,  was  prose- 
cuted for  reading  prohibited  books  and  even  the  episcopal  dignity 


1  Obregon,  op.  tit.,  2ft-  Serie,  pp.  389,  392-3. 

Lizardi's  troubles  did  not  end  with  the  extinction  of  the  Inquisition.  In  1822 
he  issued  a  defence  of  Free-Masonry  which  excited  clerical  wrath.  In  Puebla, 
a  priest,  after  arousing  the  people  with  his  sermons,  headed  a  mob  which  broke 
into  a  printer's  shop,  carried  off  the  obnoxious  books  and  made  an  auto  de  fe  of 
them,  leading  to  a  tumult  in  which  three  men  were  killed  and  a  number  were 
wounded.  About  the  same  time  Lizardi  was  obliged  to  appeal  to  the  C6rtes  for 
protection  against  his  public  excommunication  by  the  archiepiscopal  provisor. — 
El.  Sol,  pp.  122,  146,  152  (Mexico,  1822). 

1  I  owe  to  the  late  General  Don  Vicente  Riva  Palacio  the  documents  in  this 
matter. 


POLITICAL  FUNCTIONS  275 

of  Manuel  Abad  y  Queipo,  Bishop-elect  of  Valladolid  (Mechoacan) 
did  not  save  him  from  trouble  for  the  same  offence.1 

Yet  this  reactionary  tendency  was  accompanied  with  an  in- 
creasing disposition  to  enforce  the  subordination  of  the  Inqui- 
sition and  to  render  it  an  instrument  of  the  Government.  A 
royal  cedula  of  December  12,  1807,  takes  additional  precautions 
to  prevent  illegal  increase  in  the  number  of  familiars  and  officials 
and  to  give  the  secular  authority  a  closer  supervision  over  them. 
When  secular  assistance,  moreover,  was  called  for,  it  could  no 
longer  be  commanded  as  a  right,  except  in  matters  of  faith;  if 
the  temporal  jurisdiction  was  concerned,  the  Inquisition  was  put 
on  a  level  with  other  ecclesiastical  courts,  and  the  magistrate 
was  instructed  to  examine  the  merits  of  the  case  and  to  give  or 
withhold  his  aid  accordingly.2  As  agitation  in  Mexico  increased 
with  the  news  of  the  abdication  of  Carlos  IV  and  the  Napoleonic 
usurpation,  foreshadowing  the  Revolution,  the  political  impor- 
tance of  the  Inquisition,  as  an  agency  of  repression,  became  greater 
and  its  so-called  sacred  functions  were  more  and  more  subordi- 
nated. Successive  edicts  of  August  27,  1808,  and  April  28,  June 
16  and  September  28,  1809,  were  directed  against  all  proclama- 
tions and  emissaries  seeking  to  pervert  the  loyalty  of  the  colonists 
in  favor  of  the  ambitious  schemes  of  the  French,  and  the  doctrine 
of  popular  sovereignty  was  denounced  as  manifest  heresy3 — a 
doctrinal  definition  which  was  effectively  used  during  the  debate 
on  the  suppression  of  the  Holy  Office,  in  the  Cortes  of  C&diz,  which 
had  affirmed  that  sovereignty.  Even  in  a  matter  so  foreign  to 
politics  as  solicitation  in  the  confessional,  it  is  suggestive  to 
observe  that,  in  the  trial  for  that  offence  of  Dr.  Pedro  Mendizabal, 
cura  of  the  parish  of  Santa  Ana  (1809-1819)  his  correct  political 
conduct  is  urged  upon  the  inquisitors  as  a  matter  for  their  favor- 
able consideration — which  may  possibly  have  conduced  to  his 
escape  in  the  face  of  convincing  evidence.4 

1  Obregon,  op.  cit.,  2»  Serie,  p.  393. 

2  Note  to  Recop.,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  xix,  ley  1.     Cf.  Lib.  m,  Tit.  i,  ley  2. 

8  See  in  Appendix  the  Edict  of  January  26, 1811.   Also  Obregon,  2*  Serie,  p.  393. 
*  Proceso  contra  Dr.  Pedro  Mendizabal,  fol.  13  (MS.  penes  me). 


276  MEXICO 

The  political  functions  assumed  by  the  Inquisition  become 
especially  manifest  in  its  trials  of  the  two  chief  martyrs  of  the 
war  of  independence — Hidalgo  and  Mbrelos.  The  former  of 
these,  Miguel  Hidalgo  y  Castilla,  the  parish  priest  of  los  Dolores, 
who  first  raised  the  standard  of  revolt,  in  conjunction  with  Allende, 
Aldama  and  Abasolo,  and  who  was  elected  generalissimo  of  the 
insurgent  army,  was  a  singularly  interesting  character.1  Born 
in  1753,  he  received  his  education  at  the  royal  university  of  San 
Nicola's  at  Mechoacan,  where  he  became  rector  and  theological 
professor.  In  the  formal  accusation  during  his  trial  it  is  asserted 
that  he  was  known  while  there  as  el  zorro,  or  the  fox,  on  account 
of  his  cunning,  and  that  he  was  finally  expelled  because  of  a 
scandalous  adventure,  in  the  course  of  which  he  was  obliged  to 
escape  at  night  through  a  window  of  the  chapel.  Taking  orders, 
he  finally  settled  as  cura  at  los  Dolores  where,  in  spite  of  a  large 
revenue,  he  encumbered  himself  with  debts.  He  loved  music 
and  dancing  and  gaming  and  his  relations  with  women  were  of  a 
character  common  enough  with  the  clergy  of  the  period.  His 
abounding  energy  led  him  to  establish  potteries  and  to  introduce 
silk-culture,  which  may  doubtless  account  for  his  indebtedness. 
He  was  regarded  as  a  prodigy  of  learning  and  kept  up  his  intel- 
lectual pursuits,  translating  tragedies  of  Racine  and  comedies  of 
Moliere,  the  latter  of  which  he  caused  to  be  acted  in  his  house, 
his  favorite  being  Tartufe.  The  priest,  Garcia  de  Carrasqueda, 
who  enjoyed  his  intimacy  for  twelve  or  thirteen  years,  when  on 
trial  by  the  Inquisition,  deposed  that  they  used  to  read  together 
Cicero,  Serri,  Fleury's  Ecclesiastical  History,  Rollin's  Ancient 
History  and  an  Italian  work  on  commerce  by  Genovesi  and  that 
he  praised  highly  the  orations  of  ^Eschines  and  Demosthenes, 
Bossuet,  Buffon's  Natural  History,  Pitaval's  Causes  Celebres  and 
various  historical  works.  He  was  fond  of  debating  questionable 
points  in  theology,  emitting  opinions  not  wholly  orthodox  on 


1  I  owe  the  following  details  to  a  transcript  of  his  trial,  made  from  the  original 
in  1865  by  Don  Jose"  Marfa  Lafragua  and  kindly  communicated  to  me  by  David 
Fergusson  Esqr. 


HIDALGO  277 

such  subjects  as  the  stigmata  of  St.  Francis,  the  House  of  Loreto, 
the  Veronica,  whether  St.  Didymas  or  Gestas  was  the  penitent 
thief,  the  inheritance  of  original  sin,  the  identity  of  the  three 
kings  and  the  like,  while  his  high  reputation  for  learning  caused 
him  to  be  regarded  as  an  authority.  Altogether  he  presents 
himself  to  us  as  a  man  of  unusual  physical  and  intellectual  energy, 
not  over  nice  as  to  the  employment  of  those  energies,  of  wide 
culture,  of  vigorous  and  enquiring  mind  and  of  small  reverence 
for  formulas  or  for  authority. 

Such  a  character  was  not  likely  to  escape  the  attention  of  the 
Holy  Office.  On  July  16,  1800,  Fray  Joaquin  Huesca,  a  teacher 
of  philosophy  in  the  Order  of  Merced,  denounced  him  to  the 
commissioner  of  Mechoacan  for  various  unorthodox  utterances, 
at  which  Fray  Manuel  Estrada,  of  the  same  Order,  had  been 
present,  and  Estrada,  on  being  summoned,  confirmed  and  amplified 
the  accusation.  In  transmitting  these  depositions  to  the  tri- 
bunal, July  19th,  the  commissioner  reported  that  Hidalgo  was 
a  most  learned  man,  who  had  ruined  himself  with  gambling  and 
women,  that  he  read  prohibited  books  and,  while  professor  of 
theology,  had  taught  from  Jansenist  works.  The  tribunal 
necessarily  started  an  investigation,  which  lasted  for  more  than 
a  year  and  included  the  testimony  of  some  thirteen  witnesses, 
resulting  in  proof  of  a  wide  variety  of  most  heretical  utterances, 
any  one  of  which,  if  pertinaciously  maintained,  would  have 
sufficed  to  consign  him  to  the  stake.  Moreover,  he  was  described 
as  revolutionary  in  his  tendencies,  speaking  of  monarchs  as 
tyrants  and  cherishing  aspirations  for  liberty;  he  was  well-read 
in  current  French  literature  and  had  little  respect  for  the  censor- 
ship— in  short  he  was  what  was  subsequently  termed  an  afran- 
cesado.  The  commissioner  of  San  Miguel  el  Grande  reported, 
March  11,  1801,  much  about  Hidalgo's  disorderly  life  and  that 
he  carried  about  with  him  an  Alcoran  but,  in  a  second  report 
of  April  13th,  he  stated  that  in  the  recent  Easter,  Hidalgo  had 
reformed,  a  matter  which  was  widely  discussed  and  seems  to 
have  aroused  general  attention.  In  due  time,  on  October  2, 


278  MEXICO 

1801,  the  fiscal  reported  on  this  accumulated  testimony  that,  if 
Hidalgo  had  uttered  the  propositions  ascribed  to  him,  he  should 
be  arrested  with  sequestration  of  property,  but  the  witnesses 
were  contradictory  and  Estrada  had  the  reputation  of  an  habitual 
liar.  He  therefore  recommended  that  the  case  be  suspended  and 
the  papers  be  filed  for  future  reference,  to  which  the  tribunal 
assented. 

The  case  rested  until  July  22,  1807,  when  a  priest  named  Jos6 
Maria  Castilblane  came  forward  to  say  that,  in  1801,  Estrada 
had  told  him  scandalous  and  heretical  things  about  Hidalgo. 
More  serious  was  a  denunciation  made,  May  4,  1808,  by  Maria 
Manuela  Herrera,  described  as  a  woman  of  good  character  who 
frequented  the  sacraments.  By  command  of  her  confessor  she 
deposed  that  she  had  once  lived  with  Hidalgo  as  his  concubine, 
when  he  told  her  that  Christ  had  not  died  on  the  cross,  but  that 
it  was  another  man;  also  that  there  was  no  hell — this  latter  she 
supposed  being  to  quiet  her  conscience,  as  they  had  an  agreement 
that  she  was  to  provide  him  with  women  and  he  was  to  provide 
her  with  men.  This  was  again  laid  before  the  fiscal  who  reported, 
June  8th,  in  favor  of  awaiting  further  proof.  Then,  on  March  15, 
1809,  Fray  Diego  Manuel  Bringas  deposed  that  he  had  found 
Hidalgo  in  possession  of  prohibited  books,  such  as  Serry's  History 
of  the  Congregations  De  Auxiliis,  under  his  own  name  and  that 
of  Augustin  Leblanc,  also  his  Dissertations  on  Christ  and  the 
Virgin,  in  which  he  speaks  without  measure  of  Maria  de  Agreda; 
that  Hidalgo  praised  this  work  and  called  Maria  a  deluded  old 
woman.1  Still,  with  singular  moderation,  no  action  was  taken 
to  restrain  Hidalgo's  audacity  and,  had  he  been  content  to  let 
politics  alone,  it  is  safe  to  say  that  the  Inquisition  would  not 

1  The  learned  Dominican  Jacques  Augustin  Berry's  Historia  Congregationum 
de  Auxiliis,  issued  also  under  the  pseudonym  of  Augustin  Leblanc,  appeared  in 
1700  and  was  promptly  condemned  in  Spain  in  1701  (Index  of  1707,  I,  776),  but 
is  not  on  the  Roman  Index.  His  Exercitationes  de  Christo  ejusque  V.  Matre  are 
in  both  Indexes.  For  a  Jesuit  opinion  of  the  former  work  see  Father  Colonia's 
Bibliotheque  Janseniste,  p.  186  (Ed.  1735). 

Maria  de  Agreda  was  a  Spanish  mystic  of  the  seventeenth  century  whom 
Spain  has  repeatedly,  up  to  modern  times,  endeavored  to  get  canonized. 


HIDALGO  279 

have  troubled  him,  so  inert  had  it  become  in  the  exercise  of  its 
ostensible  functions. 

When,  however,  he  started  the  revolution,  September  16,  1810, 
this  lethargy  gave  place  to  the  utmost  activity.  The  official 
Gazette  of  September  28th  asserted  that  he  was  disseminating 
among  the  people  the  doctrine  that  there  is  neither  hell,  purgatory 
nor  glory;  an  extract  from  this  was  sent  to  the  commissioner  at 
Queretaro,  with  instructions  to  obtain  its  verification,  which 
he  had  no  trouble  in  doing,  although  the  evidence  was  hearsay. 
Without  awaiting  this,  however,  the  testimony  which  had  been 
so  long  slumbering  in  the  secreto  was  laid  before  calificadores, 
October  9th,  with  orders  to  report  at  once.  This  they  did  the 
next  day,  to  the  effect  that,  as  he  was  a  sectary  of  French  liberty, 
they  pronounced  him  a  libertine,  seditious,  schismatic,  a  formal 
heretic,  a  Judaizer,  a  Lutheran,  a  Calvinist,  and  strongly  suspect 
of  atheism  and  materialism.  The  same  day  the  tribunal  resolved 
that,  as  he  was  surrounded  by  his  army  of  insurgents  and  could 
not  be  arrested,  he  should  be  summoned  by  edict  to  appear  within 
thirty  days.  On  the  13th  the  edict  was  printed,  on  the  14th  it 
was  posted  in  the  churches  and  was  circulated  as  rapidly  as 
possible  throughout  the  land. 

The  edict  is  a  singular  medley  of  politics  and  religion,  illustrat- 
ing the  dual  character  of  the  Inquisition  of  the  period  and  the 
enormous  advantage  to  the  Government  of  possessing  control 
over  the  ecclesiastical  establishment,  whereby  an  attack  on  the 
civil  power  could  be  made  to  assume  the  appearance  of  an  assault 
on  the  faith.  All  the  heretical  utterances,  discredited  nine  years 
before  by  the  action  of  the  tribunal,  are  put  forward  as  absolute 
facts.  It  is  impiety  that  has  led  him  to  raise  the  standard  of 
revolt  and  to  seduce  numbers  of  unhappy  dupes  to  follow  him. 
In  the  inability  to  reach  him  personally,  he  is  summoned,  under 
pain  of  excommunication,  to  appear  for  trial  within  thirty  days, 
in  default  of  which  he  will  be  prosecuted  in  rebeldia  to  definitive 
sentence  and  burning  in  effigy  if  necessary.  All  who  support  him 
or  have  converse  with  him  and  all  those  who  do  not  denounce 


280  MEXICO 

those  who  favor  his  revolutionary  projects  are  declared  guilty 
of  the  crime  of  fautorship  of  heresy  and  subject  to  the  penalties 
decreed  for  it  by  the  canons.  When  to  this  are  added  the  pro- 
clamations of  excommunication  issued  against  the  insurgents  by 
the  Archbishop  of  Mexico  and  the  bishops  of  the  disturbed  dis- 
tricts, it  will  be  seen  how  powerful  was  the  restraining  influence 
exercised  by  the  Church  over  a  population  trained  to  submission, 
and  how  intense  were  the  passions  that  braved  its  anathema.1 

In  fact,  the  hatred  of  the  Creoles  and  the  Indians  for  the  Gachu- 
pines,  or  Spaniards,  was  so  bitter  that  four-fifths  of  the  native 
clergy  espoused  the  cause  of  the  insurgents,  in  spite  of  the  censures 
of  the  Church,  and  questions  of  faith  became  inextricably  involved 
in  the  contest  between  the  factions.  To  the  loyalists,  Hidalgo 
became  a  heretic  or  indeed  a  heresiarch,  and  the  confessional  was 
so  largely  used  by  them  that  the  insurgents  became  guilty  of  a 
new  heresy,  by  asserting  that  confession  to  a  Gachupin  priest 
was  invalid.  They  found  great  comfort,  moreover,  through 
their  belief  in  the  protection  of  Our  Lady  of  Guadalupe,  who 
was  universally  revered,  and  especially  by  the  Indians,  as  the 
sovereign  patroness  of  Mexico.  On  the  fateful  16th  of  September, 
when  Hidalgo  was  marching  on  San  Miguel  el  Grande  at  the 
head  of  his  little  band  of  insurgents,  in  passing  through  Atolonila, 
he  chanced  to  take  an  image  on  linen  of  the  Guadalupe  Virgin 
and  give  it  to  one  of  his  men  to  carry  as  a  banner.  It  was  adopted 
by  the  other  bands  as  they  rose  and  it  became  the  standard  of  the 
insurrection,  usually  accompanied  with  an  image  of  Fernando  VII 
and  of  the  eagle  of  Mexico,  and  the  inscription  "Viva  nuestra 
Senora  de  Guadalupe !  Viva  Fernando  VII !  Viva  la  America  y 
muere  el  mal  gobierno! "  Second  in  rank  as  a  tutelary  power  of 
the  insurrection  was  Our  Lady  of  Puebla  and  against  these  the 


1  These  comprehensive  excommunications  led  to  a  result  not  particularly  credit- 
able to  the  Church.  A  writer  in  1822  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that,  while  the 
leading  insurgents  who  were  captured  were  formally  reconciled  before  they  were 
shot,  the  mass  of  the  people,  who  had  never  paid  any  attention  to  the  censures, 
were  freely  received  to  the  sacraments  without  having  been  absolved. — El  Sol, 
M6xico,  Feb.  27,  1822,  p.  107. 


HIDALGO  281 

loyalists  pitted  a  new-comer,  Our  Lady  of  los  Remedios,  who 
was  denounced  as  a  Gachupina  by  the  natives.  There  is  a  subject 
of  study  for  the  student  of  mythology  in  this  modernization  of 
the  triform  Hecate  and  in  the  revival  of  Homeric  divinities  pre- 
siding over  the  two  sides  of  the  battlefield. 

The  Inquisition  labored  earnestly  to  get  evidence  of  sacrilegious 
acts  on  the  part  of  the  insurgents  and,  as  they  were  beaten  back, 
it  had  its  emissaries  in  the  territory  from  which  they  had  been 
driven,  collecting  testimony  as  to  individuals  who  had  sympa- 
thized with  them  or  had  opposed  the  posting  of  its  edict.  The 
most  active  of  these  was  Fray  Simon  de  la  Mora,  who  accom- 
panied the  royal  army  in  its  advance.  He  reported  that  it  was 
useless  to  attempt  to  enumerate  the  common  people,  but  he  sent 
the  names  of  fifty-nine  persons  of  standing,  many  of  them  eccle- 
siastics, with  the  evidence  against  them,  and  the  notes  on  the 
margin  of  the  MS.  show  that  they  were  forthwith  entered  for 
prosecution. 

The  edict  was  duly  posted  in  the  towns  occupied  by  the  army 
but,  in  the  course  of  a  night  or  two,  it  was  generally  torn  down 
or  defaced  with  paint,  in  spite  of  the  heavy  penalties  incurred 
for  thus  impeding  the  Inquisition.  Hidalgo  felt  it  necessary  to 
issue  a  manifesto  in  defence,  protesting  that  he  had  never  departed 
from  the  faith  and  pointing  out  the  contradictory  character  of  the 
heresies  imputed  to  him.  To  this  the  Inquisition  replied  with 
another  edict,  January  26,  1811,  reiterating  its  charges,  stigma- 
tizing him  as  a  cruel  atheist  and  prohibiting  certain  proclamations 
issued  by  the  insurgents.1 

1  See  Appendix.  One  of  the  insurgent  proclamations  shows  the  savage  char- 
acter of  the  warfare.  It  sets  forth  the  terms  and  conditions  of  the  struggle  of 
which  the  following  may  serve  as  a  specimen — 

4.  The  European  who  resists  with  arms  will  be  put  to  the  sword. 

5.  When  threatened  with  siege  or  battle,  before  commencing  we  will  put  to 
the  sword  the  numerous  Europeans  in  our  hands  and  will  then  abide  the  fortunes 
of  war. 

6.  The  American  who  defends  a  European  with  arms  will  be  put  to  the  sword. 

Thus  was  justified  the  execution  of  Hidalgo  and  his  chiefs.  Whatever  sym- 
pathy we  may  feel  for  the  cause,  we  must  admit  that  the  cruelty  marking  the 
strife  was  equally  shared  and  that  the  fate  of  Maximilian  was  foreshadowed. 


282  MEXICO 

Meanwhile  his  trial,  in  absentia,  was  proceeding  through  its 
several  stages  as  deliberately  as  though  he  were  an  ordinary 
heretic  in  time  of  peace.  On  November  24,  1810,  the  tribunal 
declared  that,  having  evidence  that,  on  October  27th,  he  had 
knowledge  of  the  edict,  the  thirty  days'  term  should  run  from 
October  28th.  On  November  28th,  therefore,  the  fiscal  demanded 
that  he  should  be  treated  as  rebelde,  or  contumacious,  and  that 
ten  days,  as  usual,  should  be  allowed  him  to  appear  in  person. 
The  prescribed  three  terms  of  ten  days  each,  with  two  days  addi- 
tional, were  scrupulously  observed.  Then  further  delay  followed 
and  it  was  not  until  February  7,  1811,  that  the  formal  trial 
began  with  the  presentation  by  the  fiscal  of  the  accusation.  This 
was  in  the  ordinary  form,  reciting  that  Hidalgo  was  a  Christian, 
baptized  and  confirmed,  and  as  such  enjoying  the  privileges  and 
exemptions  accorded  to  good  Catholics, "  yet  had  he  left  the  bosom 
of  holy  Church  for  the  filthy,  impure  and  abominable  faith  of 
the  heretic  Gnostics,  Sergius,  Berengar,  Cerinthus,  Carpocrates, 
Nestorius,  Marcion,  Socinus,  the  Ebionites,  Lutherans,  Calvinists 
and  other  pestilential  writers,  Deists,  Materialists  and  Atheists, 
whose  works  he  has  read  and  endeavored  to  revive  and  to  per- 
suade his  sect  to  adopt  their  errors  and  heresies,  believing  wrongly, 
like  them,  as  to  various  articles  and  dogmas  of  our  holy  religion 
and  revolutionizing  the  whole  bishoprics  of  Mechoacan  and  Guada- 
lajara and  great  part  of  the  arch-diocese  of  Mexico,  being  moreover 
the  chief  cause  of  the  great  abominations  and  sins,  which  have 
been  and  still  are  committed.  All  this  and  more,  which  I  shall 
set  forth,  constitute  him  a  formal  heretic,  apostate  from  our 
holy  religion,  an  atheist,  materialist  and  deist,  a  libertine,  sedi- 
tious, schismatic,  Judaizer,  Lutheran  and  Calvinist,  guilty  of 
divine  and  human  high  treason,  a  blasphemer,  an  implacable 
enemy  of  Christianity  and  the  State,  a  wicked  seducer,  lascivious, 
hypocrite,  a  cunning  traitor  to  king  and  country,  pertinacious, 
contumacious  and  rebellious  to  the  Holy  Office,  of  all  of  which 
I  accuse  him  in  general  and  in  particular/'  The  fiscal  then  pro- 
ceeds to  recite  the  evidence  taken  since  1800,  followed  by  a  long 


HIDALGO  283 

statement  of  Hidalgo's  share  in  the  insurrection  and  winding  up 
with  the  customary  petition  that,  without  requiring  further  proof, 
the  accused  shall  be  condemned  to  confiscation  and  relaxation, 
in  person  if  he  can  be  had  and,  if  not,  in  effigy;  or,  if  the  evidence 
be  deemed  insufficient,  he  shall  be  tortured  if  attainable. 

The  inquisitors  received  the  accusation  and  gravely  ordered, 
according  to  form,  that  a  copy  be  given  to  Hidalgo  and,  in  view 
of  his  contumacious  absence,  that  due  notification  be  made  in 
the  halls,  which  was  accordingly  done  and  record  made.  Then, 
on  February  19th,  the  fiscal  accused  the  contumacy  of  the  absent 
and  fugitive  Hidalgo  in  not  answering  and  asked  that  the  case  be 
concluded  and  received  to  proof.  The  inquisitors  assented  and 
the  proof  was  presented.  May  20th,  the  fiscal  demanded  the 
publication  of  evidence,  which  was  duly  ordered  to  be  made,  with 
the  ordinary  suppression  of  their  names.  A  large  portion  of  this 
consisted  of  evidence  taken  during  the  insurrection,  showing  acts 
of  sacrilege,  contempt  for  the  Inquisition  and  its  edicts  and  the 
like,  on  the  part  of  Hidalgo  and  his  followers.  A  copy  of  this  was 
ordered  to  be  given  to  him  and  that  he  answer  it  in  the  next 
audience,  of  which  announcement  was  made  in  the  halls  and  duly 
recorded.  It  was  not  until  June  14th  that  the  next  step  was  taken, 
in  ordering  a  copy  of  both  accusation  and  testimony  to  be  given 
to  him  and  that  by  the  third  day  he  put  in  his  answer,  with  the 
assent  of  his  advocate,  an  advocate  being  provided  for  him  in 
the  person  of  the  Licenciado  Jose  Maria  Rosas.  Then  another 
witness  was  found  in  the  priest  Garcia  de  Carrasquedo,  a  prisoner 
on  trial,  to  whom  allusion  has  been  made  above.  His  evidence 
was  taken  June  21st  and,  on  the  27th,  was  submitted  to  califi- 
cadores  who,  on  August  12th,  presented  a  long  and  learnedly 
argumentative  report,  in  which  they  characterized  the  several 
propositions  with  the  customary  choice  selection  of  objurgatory 
epithets,  as  falsat  impia,  temeraria,  blasfema,  malsonante,  sapiens 
hceresim,  llena  de  escandalo,  erronea,  sapiens  errorem  Lutheranvrum, 
Judaica  y  formalmente  hceretica,  injuriosa  al  espiritii  de  la  S.  M. 
Iglesia,  and  they  concluded  that,  if  he  who  uttered  them  did 


284  MEXICO 

so  with  full  knowledge  of  their  import,  he  was  a  formal  heretic. 
This  was  practically  the  last  act  of  the  long  drawn-out  comedy, 
although  some  additional  testimony  concerning  Hidalgo  was 
taken  and  recorded,  February  10  and  20,  1812,  in  the  trial  of 
the  habitual  liar,  Fray  Manuel  Estrada.  Events  had  moved 
faster  than  the  Inquisition.  After  the  disastrous  day  of  the 
Bridge  of  Calderon,  Hidalgo  in  his  flight  had  been  captured, 
March  21, 1811,  at  Bajan,  and  carried  two  hundred  leagues  farther 
north  to  Chihuahua,  where  he  was  executed,  July  31st,  before 
the  calificadores  had  finished  their  formulation  of  his  heresies. 
No  notice  of  this  was  given  to  the  Inquisition,  which  was  treated 
with  a  singular  discourtesy,  savoring  of  contempt.  The  expla- 
nation of  this  probably  is  that,  if  it  had  been  apprised  of  the 
capture,  it  could  rightly  have  claimed  the  prisoner  as  a  heretic, 
primarily  subject  to  its  supreme  and  exclusive  jurisdiction;  there 
might  have  been  danger  in  escorting  him  back  through  the  recently 
disturbed  provinces;  the  processes  of  the  Inquisition  were  notori- 
ously slow  and,  after  it  had  tried  the  culprit  and  he  had  abjured 
and  been  penanced  in  an  auto  de  fe,  he  would  still  have  to  be 
condemned  in  a  military  court.  It  was  in  every  way  wiser  to  try 
him  and  despatch  him  in  far-off  Chihuahua,  arid  the  local  military 
and  ecclesiastical  authorities  cooperated  to  this  result,  leaving  the 
Inquisition  to  find  out  what  it  could,  and  not  even  forwarding  a 
supplication  which  Hidalgo  addressed  to  it,  on  June  10th. 

The  tribunal  waited  patiently  for  eleven  months  after  the 
catastrophe  and  then,  on  June  25,  1812,  it  wrote,  with  much 
solemnity,  to  its  two  commissioners  in  Chihuahua,  reminding 
them  that  the  edict  of  October  13,  1810,  rendered  it  their  duty  to 
keep  it  advised  of  the  capture  of  Hidalgo  and  of  all  subsequent 
occurrences.  They  should  have  gone  to  him  in  prison  and  exhorted 
him  to  make  a  declaration  on  all  points  contained  in  the  edict  and 
whatever  else  weighed  upon  his  conscience.  All  signs  of  repent- 
ance should  have  been  observed  and  reported,  and  at  least  his 
confession  to  his  judges,  in  so  far  as  the  Inquisition  was  concerned, 
should  have  been  sent  to  it.  The  alcaide,  the  ecclesiastics  and 


HIDALGO  285 

the  military  officers  must  now  be  examined  as  to  his  state  of  mind 
during  his  imprisonment,  so  that  the  tribunal  may  be  informed 
as  to  his  repentance  or  impenitence  and  thus  be  enabled  to  render 
justice.  The  two  commissioners  are  to  work  in  harmony,  with 
power  of  subdelegation,  and  they  are  made  responsible,  before 
God  and  the  king,  for  the  due  discharge  of  their  duties. 

The  Holy  Office  evidently  took  itself  seriously  and  considered 
that  judgement  as  to  Hidalgo's  heresies  still  lay  in  its  hands. 
There  must  have  been  a  flush  of  indignation  and  wounded  pride 
when,  on  January  2,  1813,  the  inquisitors  received  from  Sanchez 
Alvarez,  one  of  the  commissioners,  an  answer  dated  October  27, 
1812,  reporting  that  he  had  applied  to  Nemesio  Salcedo,  the  com- 
mandant-general, who  had  ordered  him  to  suspend  all  action  and 
that  he,  Salcedo,  would  explain  the  absolute  necessity  for  this. 
The  tribunal  had  to  wait  until  February  27th  before  it  received 
Salcedo's  explanation,  dated  October  22d,  showing  how  its 
supreme  jurisdiction  had  been  overslaughed  with  as  little  cere- 
mony as  that  of  a  pie-powder  court.  With  profuse  expressions 
of  respect,  Salcedo  stated  that  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the 
provinces  required  that  the  matter  should  not  be  agitated. 
Hidalgo  was  not  a  heretic  and  would  not  have  been  permitted 
to  receive  the  sacraments  and  ecclesiastical  burial,  had  he  not 
been  duly  absolved  and  reconciled  to  the  Church.  A  royal  order, 
he  said,  of  May  12, 1810,  had  conveyed  papal  inquisitorial  faculties 
to  the  bishops,  and  the  Bishop  of  Durango  had  subdelegated  Doctor 
Francisco  Fernandez  Valetin,  the  doctoral  canon  of  his  church, 
thus  constituting  him  a  papal  inquisitor.1  To  him,  as  such,  were 
communicated  the  answers  of  Hidalgo  on  his  trial,  who  ratified 
them  in  his  presence;  he  also  verified  the  manifesto  of  Hidalgo, 
which  was  published,  and  he  absolved  him.  In  addition  he  saw 


1  In  estimating  the  veracity  of  this  curious  tale,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that 
both  Fernando  VII  and  Pius  VII  were  at  the  time  prisoners  of  Napoleon.  There 
was,  it  is  true,  a  Spanish  Regency  and  the  Cortes  of  Cadiz  which  used  the  royal 
name,  but  it  is  inconceivable  that,  even  if  it  had  access  to  the  pope,  it  would  have 
taken  such  a  precaution  at  a  time  when  there  was  no  anticipation  of  rebellion 
in  the  colonies. 


286  MEXICO 

the  supplication  of  Hidalgo  to  the  Inquisition,  which  would 
have  been  forwarded  sooner  but  for  the  danger  of  its  being  inter- 
cepted and  which  was  now  enclosed,  together  with  the  other  neces- 
sary papers.  These  were  extracts  from  Hidalgo's  examination, 
his  manifesto  to  the  insurgents  and  the  supplication  in  question. 

It  was  somewhat  brutal  to  have  kept  the  tribunal  so  long  in 
the  dark  on  a  matter  touching  its  highest  privilege  and  to  have 
detained  for  sixteen  months,  on  a  frivolous  pretext,  a  suppli- 
cation addressed  directly  to  it,  but  its  position  was  becoming 
precarious  and  it  dared  not  complain.  Napoleon's  suppression 
of  the  Inquisition  of  Spain,  in  1808,  did  not  count  for  much,  but 
the  Cortes  of  Cddiz  had  enacted  a  liberal  Constitution  in  1812  and 
simultaneously  the  preliminary  skirmishing  for  the  abrogation 
of  the  Inquisition  preoccupied  all  minds.  It  was  enacted  Feb- 
ruary 22,  1813,  and,  though  the  news  had  not  as  yet  reached 
Mexico,  the  result  could  scarce  have  been  doubted  when  the 
tribunal  took  action  on  March  13th.  It  evidently  placed  no 
faith  in  the  story  of  a  papal  inquisitor,  suddenly  created  in  the 
wilds  of  Chihuahua,  for  it  wholly  ignored  his  action.  The  fiscal 
reported  to  the  tribunal  that,  in  spite  of  Hidalgo's  supplication 
for  pardon  and  endeavors  to  satisfy  the  charges  against  him, 
there  were  not  merits  enough  to  absolve  his  memory  and  fame  nor, 
at  the  same  time,  to  condemn  him,  as  it  appeared  that  he  had 
made  a  general  confession  and  had  been  reconciled,  whereupon 
the  tribunal  ordered  the  case  to  be  suspended  and  the  papers  to 
be  filed  in  their  proper  place — an  expression  of  dissatisfaction 
and  an  admission  of  powerlessness.  On  March  29th  it  acknow- 
ledged Salcedo's  letter  and  drily  thanked  him. 

Hidalgo's  supplication  to  the  Inquisition,  written  in  his  prison 
on  June  10,  1811,  is  a  long  and  dignified  declaration  of  submission, 
calmly  and  clearly  reasoned  and  manifesting  full  command  of  his 
theological  learning.  But  for  his  confinement,  he  said,  he  would 
hasten  to  throw  himself  at  the  feet  of  the  tribunal,  not  only  to 
seek  pardon  for  his  insubordination,  but  to  vindicate  himself 
from  the  charge  of  heresy  and  apostasy,  which  was  insufferable 


HIDALGO  287 

to  him.  He  answered  the  various  accusations  of  the  edict, 
denying  that  he  had  led  an  immoral  life  and  exculpating  himself 
with  much  dexterity  from  the  heresies  imputed  to  him,  but  if,  he 
added,  the  Inquisition  deemed  his  utterances  heretical,  although 
he  had  not  hitherto  so  considered  them,  he  now  retracted, 
abjured  and  detested  them.  He  concluded  by  begging  to  be 
relieved  from  the  disgrace  of  heresy  and  apostasy;  the  tribunal 
could  repose  entire  faith  in  his  statements  for,  if  he  had  committed 
those  crimes,  the  circumstances  in  which  he  now  found  himself 
would  impel  him  to  confess  them  freely,  in  order  to  gain  the 
pardon  and  absolution  that  would  open  to  him  the  gates  of  heaven 
and  would  close  them,  if  withheld,  in  consequence  of  his  denial. 

The  frame  of  mind  revealed  in  this  document,  which  is  unques- 
tionably genuine,  serves  to  refute  the  imputation  of  forgery  so 
generally  ascribed  to  Hidalgo's  manifesto  of  May  18th,  addressed 
"A  Todo  el  Mundo"  and  published  in  order  to  quiet  the  popula- 
tion. Its  effusiveness  and  extravagance  of  repentance,  and  the 
earnestness  of  its  exhortations  to  his  followers  to  submit,  have 
not  unnaturally  created  suspicion,  from  their  violent  contrast 
to  the  deep  convictions  and  reckless  energy  with  which  he  pre- 
cipitated and  sustained  the  insurrection,  but  it  can  be  accepted 
as  authentic  without  impugning  his  good  faith.  He  was  impulsive 
and  enthusiastic  and  was  liable  to  the  revulsions  incident  to  his 
temperament.  His  cause  had  been  disowned  by  God ;  he  had  been 
captured  as  a  fugitive  within  a  few  months  after  he  had  been  at 
the  head  of  eighty  thousand  men.  The  grave  was  yawning  for 
him,  as  the  portal  to  the  hereafter,  in  which  there  was,  in  his 
belief,  no  escape  from  eternal  torment  for  one  who  died  as  a  rebel 
to  the  Church.  He  was  a  fervent  Catholic,  whose  excommuni- 
cation cut  him  off  from  the  sacraments  essential  to  salvation, 
unless  he  could  prove  himself  worthy  of  them  by  earnest  repent- 
ance and  by  the  amendment  which  could  only  be  manifested 
through  zeal  in  undoing  that  which  had  brought  upon  him  the 
anathema.  That  under  such  pressure  he  should  seek  to  avert 
the  endless  doom  by  heart-felt  contrition  was  natural,  however 


288  MEXICO 

strange  it  may  seem  to  those  brought  up  in  a  different  faith,  who 
can  sympathize  with  his  aspirations  for  liberty  but  cannot  realize 
the  emotions  enkindled  by  his  religious  convictions. 

The  decree  of  the  Cortes  of  Cddiz,  February  22,  1813,  suppress- 
ing the  Inquisition  was  published  in  Mexico  June  8th.  Under  it 
the  property  of  the  tribunal  was  applicable  to  the  treasury  for 
the  reduction  of  the  public  debt  and  was  forthwith  sequestrated; 
there  were  no  prisoners,  the  few  political  ones  having  been  trans- 
ferred to  various  convents  some  days  in  advance.  We  have  an 
authentic  account  of  the  transaction,  made  December  20,  1814, 
after  the  Restoration,  by  the  alcaide  of  the  secret  prison.  He 
says  that  the  decree  had  been  eagerly  expected ;  the  tribunal  and 
its  ministers  were  regarded  with  contempt  and  its  privileges  were 
set  at  defiance.  Immediately  after  the  publication,  Viceroy 
Calleja  announced  to  the  senior  inquisitor  the  cessation  of  its 
functions;  the  next  day  the  official  commissioned  for  the  purpose 
came  to  take  possession  and  commenced  an  inventory.  The 
building  was  thrown  open  to  gaping  crowds,  who  gave  free  vent 
to  their  detestation  of  the  institution.  On  the  llth,  the  money 
in  the  chest  was  removed;  the  records  concerning  the  faith  were 
delivered  to  the  Archbishop  Bergosa  y  Jordan,  while  the  papers 
connected  with  property  were  taken  by  the  Intendente  of  the 
Government,  who  confided  them  to  the  writer  and  allotted  to  him 
offices  in  which  to  keep  them.  In  the  Inquisition  building  was 
established  the  lottery,  and  the  adjacent  houses  of  the  inquisitors 
served  to  lodge  its  officials,  while  the  main  building  was  used  as 
a  barracks  and  the  prisons  were  turned  into  shops  for  tailors, 
shoemakers  and  other  workers  for  the  army.  The  total  amount 
sequestrated  was  1,775,656  pesos,  5£  reales,  consisting  of— 

Money  in  the  coffers 66,566  pesos,  2£  reales. 

Capital  invested 1,394,628      "      1*      " 

Due  on  income  of  censos      ....  181,482      "      1.7  gr. 

Fifteen  rented  houses 125,000      " 

Furniture,  etc.,  sold  at  auction,  July  19  8,000      " 

1,775,676      "      5i  realeg. 


SUPPRESSION  IN  1813  289 

The  alcaide  proceeds  to  give  us  details  as  to  the  organization 
and  finances  of  the  tribunal.  Besides  the  inquisitors  and  fiscal 
there  were  seven  secretaries,  a  messenger,  a  treasurer,  a  contador, 
a  purveyor  of  the  prison,  an  alcaide  and  his  assistant,  a  notary 
of  the  sequestrations,  two  officials  of  the  secreto,  an  advocate  of 
the  fisc  and  an  advocate  of  prisoners — a  largely  superfluous  force 
for  the  trivial  work  to  be  performed.  The  pay-rolls  amounted 
to  33,000  pesos  per  annum,  the  subvention  to  the  Suprema  was 
10,000,  and  the  expenditure  for  maintaining  prisoners,  repairs, 
church  functions,  etc.,  brought  the  annual  outlay  to  55,000  or 
60,000,  while  the  income  was  85,000,  to  which  was  added  32,000 
from  the  canonries,  amounting  in  all  to  117,000 — about  double 
the  expenses,  showing  how  profitable  had  proved  the  purification 
of  the  faith.1 

On  August  31st  the  archbishop  reported  to  the  Government 
that  the  decree  of  suppression  had  been  read  in  the  cathedral 
on  the  three  Sundays  following  its  receipt.  The  sanbenitos  were 
at  once  removed  from  the  places  where  they  were  hung;  the  Prior 
of  the  Hospital  of  San  Jose  asked  for  them  to  clothe  the  insane, 
but  the  viceroy  took  them  for  the  troops.  The  Archbishop  re- 
quested to  have  the  prohibited  books,  which  were  stored  in  four 
rooms  of  his  palace,  and  they  were  given  to  him.  He  was  an  old 
inquisitor  and  lost  no  time  in  assuming  the  jurisdiction  over 
heresy  restored  to  the  episcopate  by  the  decree  of  suppression. 
As  early  as  June  10th,  he  issued  a  pastoral  ordering  denunciation 
to  him  of  all  persons  suspect  of  heresy  and,  on  September  27th, 
he  published  another  calling  for  the  surrender  of  all  prohibited 
books  by  those  who  did  not  hold  licences.2 

The  decree  of  suppression  provided  for  the  continued  salaries 
of  the  officials  and  after  this  the  two  senior  inquisitors  dis- 
appear— Bernardo  de  Prado  y  Obejero  and  Isidore  Sainz  de 
Alfaro  y  Beaumont — probably  returning  to  Spain,  where  refugees 
from  the  American  tribunals  were  taken  care  of.  The  junior, 
Manuel  de  Flores,  remained  and  was  ready  to  resume  his  functions 

1  Medina,  pp.  456-61.  2  Ibidem,  pp.  461,  463. 

19 


290  MEXICO 

whenever  the  "  suspension,"  as  he  called  it,  was  removed.  His 
foresight  was  speedily  rewarded,  for  one  of  the  first  acts  of  Fer- 
nando VII  on  his  restoration  was  the  decree  of  May  4,  1814,  abro- 
gating the  Constitution  of  Cddiz,  declaring  invalid  all  laws  enacted 
under  it  and  even  menacing  with  the  death-penalty  all  who 
should  keep  copies  of  them.  This  of  itself  virtually  revived  the 
Inquisition,  but  legislation  was  required  to  reorganize  it  and  this 
was  effected  by  a  decree  of  July  2 1.1  Inquisitor  Flores  had  not 
waited  for  this,  as  we  find  that  he  had  already  for  some  time 
been  gathering  evidence  against  Manuel  Abad  y  Queipo,  Bishop- 
elect  of  Mechoacan,  which  he  transmitted,  August  31st,  to  the 
Suprema  for  its  action.2 

It  was  not  until  December  23d  that  Viceroy  Calleja  notified 
him  to  re-establish  the  tribunal,  in  execution  of  the  royal  decree 
of  July  21st;  this  he  followed  on  January  4,  1815,  with  a  procla- 
mation embodying  the  decree  and  announcing  that  the  tribunal 
had  been  restored  to  its  jurisdiction  and  that  its  property  had  been 
returned  to  it.  The  archbishop  also  issued  a  pastoral  requiring 
all  denunciations  to  be  made  to  it  and  Flores,  on  January  21st, 
published  an  Edict  of  Faith  ordering  the  denunciation,  within  six 
days,  of  all  heresies,  prohibited  books  and  all  words  of  disrespect 
towards  the  Holy  Office  that  might  subsequently  be  uttered.3 
The  tribunal  however,  was  in  a  sadly  dilapidated  condition.  The 
alcaide  in  a  letter  of  December  30,  1814,  reports  that  the  restora- 
tion of  property  consisted  in  the  written  securities  and  the  real 
estate,  but  only  773  pesos  of  the  money  had  been  returned. 
Notice  had  been  given  that  the  fruits  of  the  canonries  and  interest 
on  the  censos  were  to  be  paid  as  formerly  to  the  tribunal.  The 
purchaser  of  the  furniture,  which  had  been  sold  at  auction  in 
July,  was  nominally  a  merchant  but  in  reality  the  Count  of  la 
Cortina,  from  whom  they  were  endeavoring  to  get  it  back  at 
the  price  which  it  had  brought,  but  much  had  been  resold;  the 


1  Coleccion  de  C&lulas  etc.  de  Fernando  VII,  pp.  8,  85  (Valencia,  1814). 
1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Libros  877,  890. 
.  *  Medina,  pp.  467-9. 


RESTORATION  291 

building  had  to  be  refitted  for  their  use  and  altogether  they  were 
in  great  distress.1  To  add  to  their  troubles,  the  tribunal  was  so 
thoroughly  discredited  that  its  jurisdiction  was  invaded  on  all 
sides  in  a  manner  indicating  the  contempt  in  which  it  was  held. 
Viceroy  Calleja  issued  a  proclamation  condemning  to  the  flames 
the  Constitution  adopted  by  the  insurgents  October  22,  1814,  at 
Apatzingan,  together  with  various  of  their  sermons,  addresses,  etc. 
and  ordering  them  to  be  denounced  to  him  under  pain  of  death. 
Then,  on  May  24,  1815,  he  sent  a  copy  of  this  to  the  tribunal, 
inviting  it  to  take  action  and  use  all  rigor  for  their  suppression. 
This  provoked  the  liveliest  resentment  of  Flores  who  complained 
bitterly  to  the  Suprema,  June  29th,  of  the  intrusion  on  his  juris- 
diction and  of  the  discourtesy  manifested  in  not  previously  sub- 
mitting to  him  the  offending  papers.  He  also  enlarged  on  the 
harshness  with  which  the  decree  of  suppression  had  been  enforced 
in  1813  and  of  the  imperfect  restitution  of  property  which  Calleja 
had  publicly  asserted  to  have  been  made.  He  had  also  endeavored 
to  compel  the  officials  to  render  military  service,  but  this  had  been 
successfully  resisted.  In  spite  of  all  this  indignation,  however, 
the  insurgent  documents  were  duly  censured  by  the  calificadores 
and,  on  July  9th,  Flores  issued  an  edict  condemning  them  and 
specifying  their  errors.  The  chapter  of  the  cathedral  (sede 
vacante)  had  also  on  May  26th  published  an  edict  requiring  the 
surrender  of  these  documents  to  it  under  pain  of  excommuni- 
cation and  threatening  all  priests  and  beneficiaries  who  should 
not  exert  themselves  against  the  rebels.  This  was  a  palpable 
intrusion  on  inquisitorial  jurisdiction  which  was  deeply  resented, 
and  there  was  also  a  quarrel  with  the  royal  Audiencia  which  the 
tribunal  accused  of  invading  its  jurisdiction  and  disregarding 
its  fueros  in  the  matter  of  a  pasquinade  of  which  the  Audiencia 
had  taken  cognizance.2 

Under  these  circumstances  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  eagerly 
Flores  seized  the  opportunity  of  asserting  himself  afforded  by 
the  capture,  November  15,  1815,  of  the  insurgent  chief  Jose* 

1  Medina,  pp.  469-70.  3  Ibidem,  pp.  479-92. 


292  MEXICO 

Maria  Morelos,  who  shares  with  Hidalgo  the  foremost  place  in 
the  Mexican  Valhalla.1 

Born  in  1764  of  humble  parents,  he  was  an  agricultural  laborer 
up  to  the  age  of  25,  when  he  returned  to  his  native  Mechoacan 
and  applied  himself  to  the  study  of  grammar,  philosophy  and 
morals.  Entering  the  Church,  he  took  full  orders  and,  after 
serving  temporarily  the  cure  of  Choromuco,  he  obtained  that 
of  Caraguaro,  which  was  under  the  rectorship  of  Hidalgo.  It 
must  have  been  a  slender  benefice  for,  in  his  examination, 
he  explained  his  not  having  taken  the  indulgence  of  the  Santa 
Cruzada  by  the  plea  that  before  the  insurrection  he  was  too  poor 
to  pay  for  it  and  afterwards  the  insurgents  regarded  it  as  invalid 
and  as  merely  a  device  to  raise  money  for  the  war  against  them. 
His  morals  were  those  of  his  class;  he  admitted  to  having  three 
children,  born  of  different  mothers  during  his  priesthood,  but  he 
added  that  his  habits,  though  not  edifying,  had  not  been  scandal- 
ous, and  the  tribunal  seemed  to  think  so,  for  little  attention  was 
paid  to  this  during  his  trial  and,  in  the  edification  which  preceded 
his  sentence,  it  is  not  even  alluded  to.  He  joined  Hidalgo, 
October  28,  1810,  and  must  have  quickly  distinguished  himself, 
for  that  chief  gave  him  a  commission  to  raise  the  Pacific  coast 
provinces  and,  after  the  rout  of  the  Bridge  of  Ca^lderon,  the  burden 
of  maintaining  the  unequal  war  fell  mainly  on  Morelos,  who 
was  raised  successively  to  the  grades  of  lieutenant-general  and 
captain-general,  with  the  title  of  Most  Serene  Highness. 

Unlike  Hidalgo,  who  was  hurried  off  to  Chihuahua,  Morelos 
when  captured  was  brought  to  the  city  of  Mexico  for  trial  and 
execution,  arriving  there  on  November  21st.  He  was  carried  to 
the  Inquisition,  not  as  its  prisoner,  but  for  safe-keeping  "on 
deposit"  and  Flores,  to  preserve  the  secrecy  of  the  Holy  Office, 
made  it  a  condition  that  the  guard  accompanying  him  should 
not  go  up  stairs  or  penetrate  beyond  the  first  court-yard.  It 

1  The  following  details  of  the  trial  of  Morelos  are  derived  from  a  report,  accom- 
panied by  the  documents,  made  by  Flores  to  the  Suprema,  November  27  and 
December  29,  1815.  It  is  in  the  archives  of  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Sala  49, 
Legajo  1473.— See  also  Medina,  pp.  513-45. 


MORELOS  293 

was  not  until  1.30  A.M.  of  the  22d  that  he  was  lodged  in  the  secret 
prison,  in  a  cell  so  dark  that  he  could  not  read  the  breviary,  which 
was  given  to  him  on  his  request.  The  22d  was  occupied  with  an 
effort  to  get  permission  to  try  him — a  competencia  carried  on  in 
a  spirit  very  different  from  the  masterful  audacity  of  old.  Viceroy 
Calleja  desired  that  Morelos  should  be  degraded  from  the  priest- 
hood, within  three  days,  by  the  episcopal  jurisdiction,  in  order 
that  his  execution  should  be  prompt,  and  testimony  for  that  pur- 
pose was  already  being  taken  by  the  secular  and  spiritual  courts 
acting  in  unison.  Flores  therefore  had  no  time  to  lose  in  putting 
forward  the  claim  of  the  tribunal,  and  the  fiscal  drew  up  an  elabo- 
rate paper  showing  that  there  were  points  in  the  case  which  came 
within  its  jurisdiction.  On  the  23d  a  consulta  de  fe  was  assembled, 
consisting  of  the  episcopal  Ordinary  of  Mechoacan,  and  the  con- 
sultores  of  the  Inquisition,  which  represented  to  the  viceroy 
that,  although  Morelos  was  subject  to  both  the  secular  and 
spiritual  courts,  it  was  persuaded  that  for  other  crimes  he  was 
justiciable  by  the  Inquisition  and  that  his  trial  by  that  tribunal 
would  redound  to  the  honor  and  glory  of  God  as  well  as  to  the 
service  of  the  State  and  the  king  and  be  efficacious  in  undeceiving 
the  rebels.  Moreover,  it  promised  that  the  trial  should  be  con- 
cluded within  four  days.  Somewhat  unwillingly,  Calleja  granted 
the  request  and  no  time  was  lost  in  commencing  the  most  expe- 
ditious trial  in  the  annals  of  the  Holy  Office — a  grim  enough 
comedy  to  gratify  the  vanity  of  the  actors,  for  it  could  have  no 
influence  on  the  fate  of  the  prisoner,  save  perhaps  in  removing 
the  excommunication  under  which  he  inferentially  lay.  Flores, 
in  boasting  of  this  activity,  adds  that  they  were  much  embarrassed 
by  Morelos  being  frequently  taken  from  them  for  examination 
in  the  other  courts,  which  indicates  that  the  authorities  regarded 
the  Inquisition  as  merely  a  side-show. 

Hurried  as  were  the  proceedings,  there  was  due  observance  of 
all  the  formalities  required  by  the  cumbrous  methods  of  the 
Holy  Office.  That  same  day,  November  23d,  the  fiscal  presented 
his  clamosa,  basing  it  on  Morelos  having  signed  the  constitutional 


294  MEXICO 

decree  of  November  22,  1814,  as  well  as  various  proclamations 
condemned  as  heretical  by  the  Inquisition;1  also  on  his  celebrating 
mass  while  under  excommunication,  and  his  reply  to  the  Bishop 
of  Puebla,  when  reproached  for  so  doing,  that  it  would  be  easier 
to  get  a  dispensation  after  the  war  than  to  survive  the  guillotine; 
also  on  an  edict  of  Bishop  Abad  y  Queipo  of  Mechoacan,  July  22, 
1814,  declaring  him  to  be  an  excommunicated  heretic.  There 
was  still  time  for  a  morning  audience  and  the  prisoner  was  brought 
before  the  tribunal,  where  he  was  subjected  to  the  customary 
examination  as  to  his  genealogy  and  whole  career,  and  the  first 
monition  was  given  to  save  his  soul  by  confessing  the  truth. 
In  the  afternoon  he  had  his  second  audience  and  monition.  On 
the  morning  of  the  24th  came  the  third  audience  and  monition, 
during  which  he  admitted  that,  at  Teypan,  he  had  captured  a 
package  of  the  edicts  against  Hidalgo  and  had  utilized  them  to 
make  cartridges.  The  pompous  formulas,  urging  him  to  dis- 
charge his  conscience  so  that  the  Inquisition  might  show  him 
its  customary  mercy,  must  have  seemed  a  ghastly  jest  to  a  man 
who  knew  that  his  captors  would  shortly  have  him  shot,  and  they 
contrast  grotesquely  with  the  feverish  anxiety  of  the  tribunal 
to  have  a  share  in  the  performance. 

That  same  afternoon  the  fiscal  presented  the  accusation  and, 
considering  the  haste  in  which  it  was  prepared,  its  long  accumu- 
lation of  rhetoric  is  creditable  to  the  industry  of  the  draughts- 
man. He  describes  Morelos  as  abandoning  the  Church  for  the 
filthy  and  abominable  heresies  of  Hobbes,  Helvetius,  Voltaire, 
Luther  and  other  pestilent  writers,  rendering  him  a  formal  heretic, 
an  apostate  from  the  holy  faith,  an  atheist,  materialist,  deist, 
libertine,  seditious,  guilty  of  divine  and  human  high  treason,  an 
implacable  enemy  of  Christianity  and  the  state,  a  vile  seducer, 
hypocrite,  traitor  to  king  and  country,  cunning,  lascivious,  perti- 
nacious and  rebellious  to  the  Holy  Office.  He  shows  how 

1  The  Constitution  of  Nov.  22,  1814,  which  based  all  government  on  the  will 
of  the  people  clearly  came  under  the  edict  of  August,  1808,  which  denounced 
the  doctrine  of  popular  sovereignty  as  manifest  heresy.  For  the  same  reason 
the  Constitution  of  Cadiz  was  heretical. 


MORELOS  295 

rebellion  is  heresy  and  all  rebellious  acts  are  directly  or  indirectly 
heretical.  To  Morelos,  in  the  bottom  of  his  heart,  Christ  and 
Belial  are  equal;  he  is  even  suspect  of  toleration  and,  as  usual, 
the  accusation  concludes  by  asking  for  confiscation  and  relaxa- 
tion. The  remainder  of  the  afternoon  and  the  morning  audience 
of  the  25th  were  occupied  with  the  defendant's  answers  to  the 
twenty-four  articles  of  the  accusation.  From  what  he  said  it 
appears  that  insurgents  claimed  to  be  opposing  the  French  domi- 
nation in  Spain,  and  that  Ferdinand's  restoration  in  1814  was 
largely  disbelieved  or  was  assumed  to  be  only  another  phase 
of  Napoleon's  supremacy,  showing  that  Ferdinand  could  not 
be  a  sincere  Catholic. 

That  same  morning  the  publication  of  evidence  was  made, 
consisting  wholly  of  documents,  such  as  the  Constitution  of 
October  22,  1814,  sundry  proclamations  signed  by  Morelos  and 
his  printed  letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Puebla,  together  with  the  letter 
of  the  Bishop  of  Mechoacan  declaring  him  to  be  an  excommuni- 
cated heretic.  He  was  ordered  to  answer  with  the  advice  of  his 
counsel  and  the  three  advocates  of  prisoners  were  named  to  him, 
of  whom  he  selected  Don  Jose  Marfa  Gutierrez  de  Rosas.  He 
was  sent  to  his  cell  to  be  brought  back  directly  for  an  interview 
with  his  counsel,  who  was  sworn  in  as  customary.  There  was  no 
time  to  make  copies  of  the  papers,  so  the  unusual  course  was 
adopted  of  entrusting  the  originals  to  Rosas,  with  instructions 
to  return  them  and  present  the  defence  within  three  hours.  In 
the  afternoon  he  did  so  and  the  result  showed  him  to  be  a  ready 
writer,  but  he  was  more  occupied  in  justifying  himself  for  under- 
taking the  defence  than  in  making  a  plea  for  Morelos.  He 
savagely  denounced  the  insurrection  and  the  Cortes  of  Cadiz, 
whose  principles  it  represented,  and  he  concluded  abruptly  with 
a  few  lines,  alleging  the  repentance  of  the  defendant,  from  which 
he  hoped  for  absolution.  The  inquisitor  thereupon  ordered  the 
fiscal  to  be  notified  and  the  case  to  be  concluded. 

The  next  morning,  November  26th,  Flores  assembled  his  califi- 
cadores  and  exhibited  to  them  the  proceedings  and  the  condem- 


296  MEXICO 

nations  of  the  insurgent  Constitution  and  proclamations.  Fray 
Domingo  Barreda  opined  that  the  accused  savored  of  heresy, 
but  the  rest  were  unanimous  that  he  was  a  formal  heretic,  who 
denied  his  guilt  and  was  not  only  suspect  of  atheism  but  an  atheist 
outright.  In  the  afternoon  was  held  the  consulta  de  fe  to  decide 
upon  the  sentence.  Without  a  dissentient  voice  it  agreed  that 
a  public  auto  should  be  held  at  8  o'clock  the  next  morning  in 
the  audience  chamber,  in  the  presence  of  a  hundred  prominent 
persons  to  be  designated  by  Flores.  That  Morelos  should  there 
be  declared  guilty  of  malicious  and  pertinacious  imperfect  con- 
fession, a  formal  heretic  who  denied  his  guilt,  a  disturber  and 
persecutor  of  the  hierarchy  and  a  profaner  of  the  sacraments; 
that  he  was  guilty  of  high  treason,  divine  and  human,  pontifical 
and  royal,  and  that  he  should  be  present  at  the  mass  in  the  guise 
of  a  penitent,  in  short  cassock  without  collar  or  girdle  and  holding 
a  green  candle,  which,  as  a  heretic  and  f  autor  of  heretics,  he  should 
offer  to  the  priest.  As  a  cruel  persecutor  of  the  Holy  Office,  his 
property  should  be  confiscated  to  the  king.  Although  deserving 
of  degradation  and  relaxation,  for  the  crimes  subject  to  the 
Inquisition,  yet,  as  he  was  ready  to  abjure  he  was,  in  the  unlikely 
case  of  the  viceroy  sparing  his  life,  condemned  to  perpetual 
banishment  from  America  and  from  all  royal  residences  and  to 
imprisonment  for  life  in  the  African  presidios,  with  deprivation 
of  all  preferment  and  perpetual  irregularity.  His  three  children 
were  declared  subject  to  infamy  and  the  legal  disabilities  of 
descendants  of  heretics.  He  was  to  abjure  formally,  and  be 
absolved  from  the  excommunications  reserved  to  the  Holy  Office; 
he  was  to  make  a  general  confession  and  through  life  to  recite 
the  seven  penitential  psalms  on  Fridays  and  a  part  of  the  rosary 
on  Saturdays.  Moreover  a  tablet  was  to  be  hung  in  the  cathedral, 
inscribed  with  his  name  and  offences.1 

The  next  morning,  November  27th,  as  Flores  reports,  the  auto 
was  duly  celebrated  in  the  most  imposing  scene  ever  witnessed 
in  the  audience  chamber,  which  was  crowded  with  five  hundred 

1  See  Appendix, 


FINAL  LABORS  297 

of  the  most  important  personages  of  the  capital.  The  mass  was 
followed  by  the  impressive  ceremony  of  degradation  from  the 
priesthood,  performed  by  the  Bishop  of  Oaxaca.  Morelos  was 
delivered  to  the  royal  judge  and  returned  to  the  secret  prison 
whence,  at  1.30  of  the  following  night,  he  was  transferred  to  the 
citadel.  Flores  might  proudly  claim  to  have  vindicated  the  juris- 
diction of  the  Holy  Office,  at  some  sacrifice  of  its  dignity,  in  the 
shortest  trial  of  a  formal  heretic  to  be  found  in  its  records.  The 
object  of  the  indecent  haste  required  by  Calleja  is  scarce  apparent, 
for  Morelos  was  not  executed  until  December  22d. 

The  tribunal  continued  to  perform  its  functions.  In  1817, 
the  prosecution  of  Don  Jose  Xavier  de  Tribarren,  for  reading 
prohibited  books,  revealed  that  Don  Cayetano  Romero  of  Gue- 
taria  in  Guipuzcoa  was  equally  guilty,  and  the  Suprema  in  Madrid 
forthwith  ordered  the  tribunal  of  Logrono  to  take  action  against 
him.1  The  latest  notable  victim  was  Fray  Servando  Teresa  de 
Mier  Noriega  y  Guerra.  After  holding  him  for  some  time  in 
prison,  the  tribunal,  in  anticipation  of  its  extinction,  sent  him  to 
the  viceroy  as  an  important  offender  against  the  State,  with  a 
paper  describing  him  as  hating,  from  the  bottom  of  his  heart, 
the  king,  the  Cortes  and  all  legitimate  government,  and  even  as 
lacking  respect  for  the  Holy  See  and  the  councils  of  the  Church, 
his  dominant  passion  being  revolutionary  independence,  which 
he  had  vigorously  promoted  in  both  North  and  South  America, 
by  his  writings  full  of  passion  and  venom.2 

This  useless  prolongation  of  existence  was  soon  to  end.  One 
of  the  first  measures  of  the  revolution  of  1820,  which  restored 
the  Constitution  of  1812,  was  the  royal  decree  of  March  9th, 
suppressing  the  Inquisition.  Before  this  reached  Mexico  offi- 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  559. 

2  Obregon,  2*  Serie,  p.  395.     Mier's  crowning  offence  was  a  book  with  the  sug- 
gestive title  "Informe  y  Pedimento  Fiscal  presentado  por  los  Locos  ante  el 
Supremo  Tribunal  de  la  Razon  humana." — Archive  historico  nacional  de  Madrid, 
Inquisicion  de  Valencia,  Legajo  100. 

He  escaped  to  the  United  States  and  returned  to  Mexico  in  1822,  when  he  was 
imprisoned  by  Ddvila,  Governor  of  the  castle  of  San  Juan  de  Ulua,  but  was 
speedily  released.— El  Sol,  p.  117  (Mexico,  1822). 


298  MEXICO 

cially,  the  Viceroy  Count  of  Venadita  had  seen  it  in  the  Gaceta 
de  Madrid  and  had  arranged  for  the  extinction  of  the  tribunal. 
The  officials  ceased  their  functions  on  May  31st;  as  before,  they 
had  transferred  their  political  prisoners  to  the  public  prison  and 
those  for  matters  of  faith  to  various  convents,  the  archives  were 
delivered  to  the  custody  of  the  archbishop  and  the  officials  has- 
tened to  find  other  homes.  Then,  on  June  14th,  the  viceroy  sent 
orders  for  compliance  with  the  decree  and,  on  the  16th,  the  Inquisi- 
tor Antonio  de  Pereda  reported  that  the  tribunal  had  ceased  in  all 
its  functions  and  remained  in  a  condition  of  absolute  extinction. 
The  papers  of  pending  trials  were  distributed  among  the  appro- 
priate diocesans  and  the  Intendente  took  possession  of  the 
property.1  The  officials  straggled  back  to  Spain,  where  they  were 
provided  for  in  common  with  those  of  the  Peninsula.  In  the 
accounts  of  1833  there  still  appear  as  in  receipt  of  salaries  the 
senior  inquisitor,  Antonio  de  Pereda,  the  secretaries  Venancio 
de  Pereda  y  Cassolla  and  Jose  Maria  Briergo,  and  the  nuncio  y 
portero,  Tomas  del  Perojo.2 

Thus  forlorn  and  discredited  passed  away  the  tribunal  which 
had  in  its  prime  cast  terror  over  all  the  provinces  between  the 
two  oceans,  but  the  impression  which  it  had  produced  did  not 
disappear  with  it.  In  1821  Don  Celestino  de  la  Torre  reprinted 
a  savage  attack  issued  in  Spain,  under  the  title  of  "  Memorial  de 
la  Santa  Inquisicion,"  which  he  says,  in  a  prefatory  note,  is  for  the 
disillusionment  of  the  serviles  who  sigh  for  the  restoration  of  the 
Holy  Office.  It  is  still  more  significant  that,  in  the  agitation 
caused,  in  1833,  by  the  effort  of  the  Government  to  reduce  the 
Church  to  acquiescence  in  the  new  order  of  things,  there  appeared 
a  little  anonymous  tract  entitled  "Mientras  no  haya  Inquisicion 
se  acaba  la  Religion" — "  Without  the  Inquisition,  Religion  is 
destroyed" — arguing  that  heresy  can  never  be  suppressed  with- 
out the  use  of  force;  excommunication,  censures  and  argument 
are  of  no  avail  and  the  faith  of  Christ  can  only  be  preserved  by 

1  Medina,  p.  505. 

1  Archive  hist,  nacional  de  Madrid,  Inquisicion,  Legajo  6462,  Cuaderno  1, 
fol.  68;  Cuaderno  2,  fol.  2. 


EXTINCTION  299 

arming  the  bishops  with  all  the  powers  and  methods  of  the  Inqui- 
sition and  enforcing  their  penal  sentences  by  the  State.  The 
bishops,  in  fact,  were  quite  ready  to  assume  its  functions  as  far 
as  they  could  for,  as  late  as  1850,  on  the  appearance  of  a  trans- 
lation of  Fereal's  Mysteres  de  I'lnquisition,  with  notes  by  Don 
Manuel  de  Cuendias,  a  diocesan  junta  de  censura  was  held  which, 
without  hearing  the  accused,  passed  a  sentence  of  excommuni- 
cation on  the  editor  and  on  all  who  should  read  the  book,  all  of 
which  was  publicly  proclaimed  by  edict.  This  was  based  on  a 
consulta  presented  to  the  junta  by  Doctor  Sollano,  who  lamented 
the  abolition  of  the  Inquisition  and  proved  satisfactorily  that 
heresy  merits  the  death-penalty.1 


THE    PHILIPPINES. 

When  Spain,  in  1566,  undertook  the  conquest  of  the  Philip- 
pines, they  were  not  erected  into  a  separate  government  but 
were  placed  under  the  vice-royalty  of  New  Spain  or  Mexico,  with 
a  governor  or  captain-general  in  command.  When,  in  1581, 
the  bishopric  of  Manila  was  founded,  it  was  suffragan  to  the  arch- 
bishopric of  Mexico  and  was  not  erected  into  a  metropolitan  see 
until  1595.  The  islands  therefore  were  included  in  the  district 
of  the  Mexican  Inquisition,  but  they  were  too  sparsely  occupied 
by  Europeans  for  the  tribunal  to  think  it  necessary  to  estab- 
lish an  organization  there.  When,  however,  the  first  bishop,  the 
Dominican  Domingo  de  Salazar,  reached  his  see  in  1572,  his  zeal 
led  him  at  once  to  establish  an  episcopal  Inquisition  with  a  fiscal 
and  other  officials,  and  the  regular  inquisitorial  procedure ;  he  soon 
found  culprits  and  held  a  formal  auto  de  f e,  exercising  his  assumed 
authority  with  excessive  severity.  Don  Francisco  de  Zufiiga, 
a  youth  of  20,  in  a  discussion,  had  thoughtlessly  declared  forni- 

1  Defensa  del  Editor  de  la  Obra  titulada  los  Misterios  de  la  Inquisicion,  Mexico, 
1850. 


300  THE  PHILIPPINES 

cation  to  be  no  sin;  then  on  reflection  he  denounced  himself,  but 
notwithstanding  this  he  was  obliged  to  appear  in  an  auto  with  a 
gag,  and  was  banished  for  ten  years,  with  a  threat  of  two  hundred 
lashes  if  he  returned.  Canon  Francisco  de  Pare j  a,  suspected  of 
being  one  of  the  Alumbrados  of  Llerena,  when  arrested  for  solici- 
tation, hanged  himself  in  prison.  Some  of  Salazar's  penitents 
on  reaching  Mexico  complained  to  the  tribunal  and  thus  aroused 
its  attention  to  this  invasion  of  its  jurisdiction,  when  it  lost  no 
time  in  vindicating  its  rights.  March  1,  1583,  it  sent  a  commis- 
sion as  commissioner  to  the  Augustinian  Fray  Francisco  Manrique, 
a  man  of  prominence  in  his  Order,  which  was  the  most  influential 
in  the  islands,  and  at  the  same  time  it  notified  Salazar  that  it 
had  done  so  in  consequence  of  his  having  assumed  to  act  as 
inquisitor.1 

Bishop  Salazar,  who  was  on  the  point  of  celebrating  an  auto  de 
fe,  was  by  no  means  disposed  to  abandon  the  authority  which  he 
had  assumed.  He  refused  to  recognize  the  commission  of  Man- 
rique and  threatened  with  excommunication  all  who  should  do 
so.  The  Licenciado  Juan  Convergel  Maldonado,  who  supported 
Manrique,  was  thrown  into  prison  so  harsh  that  he  became  insane, 
when  Salazar  sent  him  to  Mexico,  and  Benito  de  Mendiola,  who  had 
served  as  Maldonado's  messenger,  was  likewise  imprisoned.  The 
traditional  rivalry  between  the  seculars  and  regulars  and  between 
the  different  Orders  brought  to  the  bishop  ample  support  from 
the  clergy,  the  Franciscans  and  the  Jesuits — a  high  authority 
among  the  latter,  Padre  Alonso  Sanchez,  even  declared  that 
those  who  recognized  the  commissioner  committed  mortal  sin. 
For  six  months  Fray  Manrique  kept  up  the  struggle  and  then 
abandoned  it,  writing  to  the  tribunal,  April  1,  1584,  that,  to 
avoid  scandal  he  would  do  nothing  more  until  it  should  have 
provided  a  competent  remedy.  The  tribunal  took  prompt  and 
effective  steps.  It  wrote  to  Manila  revoking  all  the  acts  of  the 
bishop  and  to  the  Suprema,  January  17,  1585,  reciting  the  cir- 

1  J.  T.  Medina,  El  Tribunal  del  Santo  Oficio  de  la  Inquisicion  en  las  Islas 
Filipinas,  pp   16,  28-9  (Santiago  de  Chile,  1899). 


THE  COMMISSIONERSHIP  301 

cumstances  and  pointing  out  the  grave  consequences  that  would 
follow  when  Salazar's  success  should  lead  other  bishops  to  follow 
his  example.  Through  the  Suprema  it  also  addressed  a  letter 
to  Philip  II,  who  responded,  May  26th,  with  a  ce*dula  to  the  bishop, 
telling  him  that  he  had  invaded  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Inquisition 
and  ordering  him  to  abstain  from  interfering  in  any  way  in  affairs 
pertaining  to  it  or  with  the  duties  of  its  commissioners.  This 
was  decisive  but  it  was  uncalled  for.  Salazar  had  already  seen 
his  error,  had  recognized  Manrique  and  had  handed  over  to  him 
the  papers  in  all  the  cases — seven  in  number — then  pending  before 
him.  Thus  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Mexican  tribunal  was  perma- 
nently established  over  the  islands,  although  subsequently  there 
were  one  or  two  attempts  made  to  organize  an  independent 
Inquisition  there.1 

In  this  the  tribunal  regarded  rather  its  own  ambition  to  extend 
its  jurisdiction  than  the  interests  of  the  faith,  for  the  whole  career 
of  the  Philippine  commissionership  manifests  the  impossibility 
of  conducting  such  a  business  at  the  distance  of  a  hundred  and 
forty  degrees  of  longitude,  when  perhaps  a  year  or  two  might  pass 
without  a  vessel  reaching  Acapulco  from  Manila.  The  duties 
and  powers  of  a  commissioner  were  strictly  limited  and  defined. 
As  a  rule  he  could  do  nothing  except  in  execution  of  orders  from 
the  inquisitors;  without  such  orders  he  could  not  make  arrests, 
unless  there  was  immediate  danger  of  the  escape  of  the  accused; 
he  could  only  gather  information,  report  it  and  await  instructions, 
and  it  was  the  same  with  regard  to  sequestration;  if  involved  in  a 
competencia  he  could  issue  inhibitions  on  the  rival  judges,  but 
he  could  not  put  into  execution  the  censures  and  penalties  threat- 
ened in  the  formulas  unless  authorized  by  the  tribunal.2  In  the 
detailed  instructions  sent  to  Manrique  along  with  his  commission 
there  is  little  concession  made  to  the  difficulties  of  distance  and 
communication  by  enlarging  his  powers.  Although  he  is  not 
allowed  to  sequestrate  property,  he  is  to  inventory  it  and  see  that 

1  Medina,  op.  cit.,  pp.  17-28,  30-1,  36-8,  141-51. 

2  Instruccion  que  han  de  guardar  los  Comisarios,  n.  16,  17,  18,  30. 


302  THE  PHILIPPINES 

it  is  left  in  charge  of  a  proper  person,  but  this  must  be  an  arrange- 
ment between  the  accused  and  the  depository  in  which  the  Inqui- 
sition assumes  no  responsibility.  He  is  expressly  told  that  he 
can  make  no  arrests  without  orders,  but  an  exception  is  made  in 
the  case  of  bigamy,  on  account  of  its  frequency,  when,  if  he 
obtains  positive  evidence  against  a  culprit,  he  can  arrest  him  and 
send  him  to  Mexico,  confining  him  in  the  royal  gaol  at  the  public 
expense,  while  awaiting  a  vessel.  On  the  other  hand,  he  is  not 
to  interfere  with  the  secular  or  spiritual  courts  when  they  prose- 
cute for  bigamy  and,  if  they  offer  to  surrender  an  offender,  he  is 
to  tell  them  to  send  him  to  Mexico,  but  not  at  the  expense  of  the 
Inquisition.1  Subsequently,  in  1611,  another  exception  was 
made,  in  the  crime  of  solicitation  in  the  confessional.  The  tribu- 
nal wrote  to  the  Suprema  that,  in  consequence  of  the  number  of 
denunciations,  and  in  view  of  the  need  of  the  culprits'  presence  in 
the  Philippines,  whither  they  had  been  sent  at  the  royal  expense, 
it  had  ordered  that  only  two  who  seemed  most  guilty  should  be 
shipped  to  Mexico  for  trial  and  sentence.  It  further  suggested 
that  in  future  the  commissioner  should  have  power,  in  conjunc- 
tion with  a  judge  or  other  qualified  person,  to  try  the  cases  and 
send  merely  the  papers  to  Mexico  where  the  sentence  should 
be  rendered.  To  this  the  Suprema  assented,  adding  that,  in  view 
of  the  distance  and  delay,  the  prisoner  should  meanwhile  be  dis- 
charged on  bail — which  indicates  that  in  these  cases  the  com- 
missioner could  arrest.2  This  does  not  seem  to  have  been  strictly 
carried  out  for,  in  1613,  we  chance  to  hear  of  three  culprits  of 
this  kind,  sent  from  Manila  to  Mexico,  with  the  papers,  for  sen- 
tence. One  of  these,  Francisco  Sdnchez  de  Santa  Marfa,  was 
accused  by  twenty-three  native  women,  and  another,  Don  Luis  de 
Salinas,  had  been  shipwrecked  on  the  coast  of  Japan  and  the 
papers  had  been  lost;  he  succeeded  in  getting  back  to  Manila,  where 
the  commissioner  tried  him  again  and  despatched  him  to  Mexico.3 

1  Medina,  op.  tit.,  pp.  178-9,  181-2.  2  Ibidem,  pp.  38-9. 

1  Medina,  op.  cit.,  pp.  42-3. 

We  have  seen  above  (p.  243)  that,  in  the  list  of  cases  of  solicitation  pending 
before  the  Mexican  tribunal  in  the  years  1622-3-4,  there  were  seven  from  Manila. 


MIL1TAR  Y  DESER  TERS  303 

Another  exception  to  the  prohibition  of  arrest  was  made  in  the 
case  of  soldiers  who  deserted  to  the  Dutch  or  to  Moros  and 
embraced  their  faith.  What  to  do  with  these  cases  presented 
a  problem  concerning  which  the  Mexican  tribunal  consulted  the 
Suprema,  as  burning  them  in  effigy  might  prevent  their  coming 
back.  The  Suprema  thereupon  submitted  the  matter  to  Philip 
III,  representing  that  the  soldiers  were  exposed  to  such  privations 
that  they  were  forced  to  fly  and  find  refuge  wherever  they  could, 
and  meanwhile  it  advised  the  tribunal  to  await  the  action  of  the 
royal  councils.  To  this  the  tribunal  replied  at  much  length,  May 
20,  1620,  stating  that  no  action  had  as  yet  been  taken  in  such 
cases,  but  that  the  commissioner  was  ordered  to  proceed  against 
the  culprits  and,  on  convicting  them,  to  send  them  to  Mexico  for 
sentence.  The  whole  discussion,  however,  was  purely  academ- 
ical; there  is  no  trace  of  such  culprits  being  forwarded  to  the 
tribunal  and  this,  possibly,  for  the  very  good  reason  that  the 
military  authorities  punished  the  offence  with  death,  when  they 
could  lay  hands  on  the  delinquents.1  There  was  another  class  of 
cases  in  which  the  commissioners  seem  to  have  exercised  the 
power  of  arrest.  In  1666  we  find  the  tribunal  complaining  to 


Of  these,  as  we  chance  to  learn  from  other  documents,  three,  Fray  Domingo 
Ferndndez,  Fray  Melchor  de  Manzano  and  Fray  Martin  de  la  Ammciacion,  were 
all  denounced,  by  different  women,  on  March  31,  1622,  to  Fray  Miguel  de  San 
Jacinto,  commissioner  for  the  province  of  New  Segovia.  As  that  day  was  the 
Thursday  after  Easter,  this  was  probably  the  result  of  confessing  to  a  rigid  con- 
fessor who  refused  absolution  until  denunciation  should  be  made.  Another 
one  was  Padre  Pedro  Ramirez,  S.  J.,  denounced  to  the  Manila  commissioner, 
Fray  Domingo  Gonzalez,  Aug.  16,  1622. 

The  comparative  infrequency  of  Jesuit  culprits  may  perhaps  be  partially 
explained  by  a  remarkable  precaution  adopted  by  the  Society.  A  depo- 
sition under  oath,  Jan.  20,  1G25,  made  in  the  Philippines  by  Padre  Baltasar  de 
Silva,  states  that  experienced  and  trustworthy  women,  whom  they  called  syndics, 
were  employed  to  confess  to  Jesuits  and  tempt  them  to  a  certain  point.  The 
result  was  reported  to  the  rector  and  if  one  was  found  to  respond  to  the  advances, 
he  was  transferred  to  some  other  place  before  he  reached  the  point  of  himself 
soliciting.  The  Order  looked  with  aversion  on  the  requirement  of  denunciation 
to  the  Inquisition  and  took  this  method  of  averting  it.  In  Manila,  about  1605, 
one  of  these  syndics  was  Dofia  Mariana  Garvi,  who  was  succeeded  by  Dona 
Maria  Marmolejo. — MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr. 

1  Medina,  op.  tit.,  pp.  48-50. 


304  THE  PHILIPPINES 

the  Suprema  that  soldiers,  to  escape  the  rigor  of  military  law, 
sought  prosecution  by  the  Inquisition  in  order  to  be  arrested  and 
sent  to  Mexico  and  to  this  end  would  blaspheme  or  utter  heretical 
propositions.  Many  of  them  died  on  the  passage  and  the  expense 
of  this  bore  heavily  on  the  tribunal.  For  this  the  Suprema  had 
no  remedy  to  suggest  except  the  plan  adopted  with  soliciting 
confessors.1  With  these  exceptions  and  the  msitas  de  navios,  or 
searching  vessels  for  prohibited  books,  the  duties  of  the  commis- 
sioner were  restricted  to  receiving  denunciations,  taking  testi- 
mony, reporting  to  Mexico  and  executing  such  orders  as  he  might 
receive  from  there.  Still,  they  were  personages  of  importance; 
although  frailes  living  in  their  convent  cells,  they  organized  an 
imperfect  kind  of  court;  they  had  their  assessors,  notaries, 
treasurers,  consul  tors  and  calificadores,  their  alguazil  mayor  and 
familiars  and  deputized  their  powers  to  sub-commissioners  in 
the  various  parts  of  the  islands. 

Of  real  inquisitorial  work  for  the  purity  of  the  faith  we  hear 
little.  During  the  sixteenth  century  the  only  evidences  of  activity 
are  three  cases  of  Judaizers — Jorje  and  Domingo  Rodriguez  of 
Manila,  reconciled  in  the  Mexican  auto  of  March  28,  1593,  and 
Diego  Herndndez,  regidor  of  Vitoria,  accused  by  his  cook  of 
ordering  her  to  cut  chickens'  throats  instead  of  strangling  them; 
his  property  was  sequestrated  and  evidence  against  him  was 
sought  in  Oporto  from  whence  he  came,  but  he  died  during  these 
prolonged  preliminaries.2  The  seventeenth  century  is  similarly 
barren,  affording  few  instances  except  the  occasional  bigamists 
and  soliciting  confessors,  military  culprits  and  sometimes  a  few 
Dutch  prisoners  of  war.  In  the  Mexican  auto  of  1648  there 
appeared  Alejo  de  Castro,  an  octogenarian  sent  from  Manila  on 
suspicion  of  Mahometanism,  sentenced  to  perpetual  exile  from 
the  Philippines  and  to  servitude  for  life  in  a  convent  for  instruc- 
tion in  the  faith.3  A  more  noteworthy  culprit  was  Padre  Fran- 
cisco Manuel  Ferndndez,  S.  J.,  a  devotee  of  Luisa  de  los  Reyes, 


1  Medina,  op.  tit.,  pp.  53-4.  *  Ibidem,  pp.  33-4. 

»  El  Museo  Mexicano,  1843,  p  361. 


INERTNESS  305 

a  Tagal  beata  who  had  ecstasies.  He  declared  that  she  had  died 
many  times  and  that  God  had  resuscitated  her  so  that  she  should 
suffer  for  the  souls  in  purgatory;  he  compared  her  for  sanctity 
to  St.  Teresa,  St.  Catherine  and  St.  Inez  and  insisted  that  when 
he  kissed  her,  embraced  her  and  handled  her  indecently,  he  had 
no  sensual  feeling.  It  was  a  clear  case  of  Illuminism  against 
which  the  Inquisition  waged  unsparing  war,  nor  was  Ferndndez 
the  only  culprit,  for  another  Jesuit,  Padre  Javier  Riquelme  was 
also  compromised.  Luisa  was  prosecuted  in  1665  and  testimony 
was  taken  against  the  Jesuits,  but  the  Mexican  tribunal  reported, 
July  17,  1770,  to  the  Suprema  that  the  case  had  been  suspended 
owing  to  the  activity  of  the  Jesuits  in  the  islands,  who  always 
made  the  cause  of  their  members  their  own.  It  complained 
bitterly  of  the  way  in  which  they  impeded  the  Inquisition  and 
frustrated  its  labors,  when  any  Jesuit  was  concerned,  whether 
for  solicitation  or  other  offence.  They  were  not  to  be  believed, 
for  there  was  the  case  of  the  French  Father  Pierre  Peleprat, 
whose  detention  was  ordered,  when  they  asserted  that  he  was  dead, 
but  subsequently  it  was  reported  that  this  was  not  so  but  that 
he  had  been  sent  to  France.1 

The  eighteenth  century  offers  a  similarly  eventless  record.  So 
great  was  the  inertness  that  the  Edict  of  Faith,  which  was  the 
chief  source  of  denunciations  and  which  should  be  published 
yearly  in  all  parish  churches,  became  virtually  obsolete.  From 
the  time  of  Commissioner  Paternina,  who  published  it  in  1669, 
forty-nine  years  elapsed  before  it  was  again  published,  in  1718, 
by  Commissioner  Juan  de  Arechederra;  and  Fray  Juan  de  la  Con- 
cepcion,  writing  in  1790,  tells  us  that  it  had  never  been  published 
since  then.2  It  was  a  somewhat  remarkable  and  uncalled-for 
burst  of  energy  on  the  part  of  Commissioner  Bernardo  de  Ustdriz, 
in  1752,  when  a  score  of  Moro  sailors  of  an  English  ship  performed 
some  pagan  rites  with  songs  and  incense  and  he  applied  to  the 
archbishop  and  then  to  the  governor  for  aid  to  punish  the  scandal. 

1  Medina,  op.  cit.,  pp.  59-66. 

2  Fray  Juan  de  la  Concepcion,  Historia  general  de  Philipinas,  T.  IX,  pp.  202-4. 

20 


306  THE  PHILIPPINES 

Both  declined,  when  he  got  General  Antonio  Romero,  who  was  a 
familiar,  to  undertake  an  investigation.  Then  force  was  needed 
to  arrest  the  culprits  and  a  prison  to  confine  them,  and  Romero 
sought  the  Marquis  of  Ovando,  the  governor  for  this,  but  Ovando 
replied  that  the  matter  was  under  his  exclusive  jurisdiction,  an 
assertion  which  he  repeated  to  Ustariz,  adding  that  he  intended 
to  punish  the  guilty.  Ustdriz  complained  of  this  to  the  tribunal, 
which  declared,  February  19,  1754,  that  the  governor  had  failed 
in  his  duty;  that  his  assertion  of  cognizance  of  such  cases  should 
be  expunged  from  any  instrument  in  which  it  appeared,  and  that 
the  commissioner  and  notary  should  notify  him  of  this  in  person. 
The  Suprema,  however,  took  a  cooler  view  of  the  matter,  pointing 
out  that,  by  the  Treaty  of  Utrecht  in  1713,  English  subjects  could 
not  be  prosecuted  for  practising  their  religion  in  Spanish  terri- 
tory, but  at  the  same  time  it  approved  of  the  action  of  the  tribunal 
and  promised  to  ask  the  king  to  make  due  provision  for  the  future.1 
Seeing  that  baptism  was  necessary  to  give  jurisdiction  to  the 
Inquisition  and  that  natives,  even  when  converted,  were  not 
subject  to  it,  this  sudden  access  of  zeal  on  the  part  of  Ustdriz 
would  appear  somewhat  supererogatory. 

Ustdriz  also  showed  his  energy,  in  1750,  by  arresting  Pierre 
Fallet,  a  Swiss  of  Neuchatel  and  a  convert  from  Calvinism.  In 
1742  Commissioner  Arechederra  had  taken  from  him  two  indecent 
prints;  in  1748  Commissioner  Juan  Alvdrez  had  deprived  him  of 
another  and  denounced  him  to  the  Mexican  tribunal  as  suspect 
of  heresy.  The  tribunal,  on  March  14,  1748,  ordered  his  arrest 
with  sequestration,  at  the  same  time  dismissing  Alvdrez  for  his 
indiscretions  and  replacing  him  with  Ustdriz.  The  sequestration 
showed  that  Pallet's  property  consisted  of  some  uncollectable 
credits  and  many  debts  but,  among  his  books  on  history,  voyages 
and  mathematics,  in  English,  French,  Flemish,  Spanish,  Latin 
and  Greek,  were  found  two  prohibited  ones — Rapin's  History  of 
England  and  a  "  Historia  publica  y  secreta  de  la  corte  de  Madrid." 
He  was  duly  sent  to  Mexico,  where  he  entered  the  secret  prison, 

1  Medina,  op.  cit.,  pp.  151-4. 


CENSORSHIP  307 

January  17,  1752,  with  broken  health.  An  accusation  of  seventy- 
six  articles  was  accumulated  against  him,  but  his  sentence  on 
August  8th  consisted  merely  of  abjuration  for  light  suspicion, 
three  months'  reclusion  in  the  Jesuit  College  for  instruction  and 
some  spiritual  penances.  This  laborious  trifling,  so  ruinous  to 
the  unfortunate  subject,  was  crowned  by  the  Suprema,  which 
pondered  over  the  case  until  March  7,  1772,  when  it  ordered  its 
suspension.  Fallet,  meanwhile,  had  been  allowed  to  return  to 
the  Philippines,  where  his  conduct  was  reported  as  exemplary.1 

Censorship  of  a  similarly  futile  kind  was  exercised  in  the  denun- 
ciation of  objectionable  books  or  passages,  which  had  to  be  for- 
warded to  Mexico  for  action.  Of  this  a  single  example  will  suffice. 
At  the  end  of  the  sixteenth  century,  the  Dominican  Fray  Francisco 
de  San  Jose  was  one  of  the  most  zealous  and  successful  mission- 
aries. He  left  a  number  of  works  in  Tagal,  some  of  which  were 
printed,  while  others  reposed  in  MS.  Among  the  latter  was  a 
volume  of  sermons  that  had  considerable  repute,  and  in  this  the 
Augustinian  Fray  Juan  Eusebio  Polo,  in  1772,  discovered  a 
passage  conveying  the  Dominican  view  entertained  at  the  period, 
as  to  the  Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Virgin.  Not  daring  to 
denounce  it  to  the  Dominican  commissioner,  he  did  so  directly  to 
the  Mexican  tribunal,  adding  that  he  could  not  send  the  MS., 
because  it  was  borrowed,  but  he  furnished  certificates  of  two  of 
his  Augustinian  brethren  as  to  the  accuracy  of  his  translation. 
This  was  forwarded  to  the  Suprema  which,  on  January  27,  1774, 
ordered  a  copy  of  the  book  to  be  searched  for  in  Mexico  and 
Manila,  the  translation  to  be  examined  by  experts,  the  matter 
to  be  voted  on  and  then  referred  back  to  Madrid.  Apparently 
this  ended  the  case.2 

If  the  natives  were  exempt  from  inquisitorial  jurisdiction,  they 
were  subject  to  that  of  the  missionary  fathers  and  it  may  be 
questioned  whether  in  this  they  were  to  be  envied.  About  1756 
an  obstinate  revolt  in  the  Island  of  Bonol  throws  some  light  on 
the  relations  between  the  converts  and  their  spiritual  guides.  A 

1  Medina,  op.  cit.,  pp.  141-51.  2  Ibidem,  pp.  161-3- 


308  THE  PHILIPPINES 

district  belonging  to  the  Jesuits  was  placed  under  the  control  of 
Padre  Morales  who,  observing  that  one  of  his  subjects  did  not  at- 
tend mass  or  frequent  the  sacraments,  ordered  him  to  be  arrested. 
The  man  was  known  to  be  a  desperate  character  and  it  was  not 
until  Morales  laid  explicit  commands  on  the  alguazil  mayor  of 
the  village  that  the  attempt  was  made,  which  resulted  in  the 
killing  of  the  alguazil  and  the  flight  of  the  culprit.  Francisco 
Dagohoy,  brother  of  the  slain,  brought  the  corpse  to  Morales  for 
Christian  burial,  which  the  padre  refused,  unless  the  regular  fees 
were  paid,  intimating  moreover  that  the  alguazil  had  died  under 
excommunication  as  a  duellist.  Naturally  exasperated,  Dagohoy, 
who  was  a  leader  among  his  people,  assembled  them,  set  forth 
their  wrongs  eloquently  and  had  little  difficulty  in  persuading 
them  to  follow  him  to  the  mountains,  to  the  number  of  some  three 
thousand.  Entrenching  themselves,  they  kept  up  a  predatory 
warfare,  in  which  Morales  was  killed  and  also  an  Augustinian 
Fray  Lamberti.  The  rigor  with  which  the  taxes  were  exacted 
by  the  Spaniards  drove  many  to  join  them  and  the  rebellion  was 
still  flourishing  in  1792,  in  spite  of  repeated  overtures  and  offers 
of  pardon — indeed,  it  may  be  doubted  whether  it  was  ever  com- 
pletely pacified  under  Spanish  domination.1 

While  this  Philippine  branch  of  the  Inquisition  accomplished 
so  little  for  the  faith,  it  was  eminently  successful  in  the  function 
of  contributing  to  the  disorder  and  confusion  which  so  disastrously 
affected  Spanish  colonial  administration.  As  everywhere  else, 
the  immunity  of  the  officials  was  a  fruitful  source  of  trouble.  In 
1601,  Benito  de  Mendiola,  a  familiar,  was  prosecuted  in  the 
secular  court  for  the  murder  of  Roque  Espina  de  Cdceres,  secre- 
tary of  the  governor,  but  the  commissioner  interposed  and  a  long 
competencia  followed,  at  the  end  of  which,  after  a  delay  of  ten 
years,  the  papers  in  the  case  were  ordered  to  be  surrendered  to 
him  by  a  decree  of  the  Suprema  of  November  28,  1611.  In 


1  Juan  de  la  Concepcion,  XIV,  81-107. — Buzeta,   Diccionario  de  las  Islas 
Filipinas,  I,  395  (Madrid,  1850). 


CONFLICTS  OF  JURISDICTION  309 

consideration  of  the  distance  and  delay,  Mendiola  was  liberated 
on  bail;  the  widow  of  his  victim  desisted  from  the  prosecution 
and  finally,  after  further  postponement  caused  by  the  difficulties 
of  communication,  the  Mexican  tribunal  sentenced  him  to  four 
months'  banishment,  two  months'  suspension  from  his  office 
as  notary  and  a  fine  of  fifty  pesos — a  punishment  sufficient  to 
show  his  guilt  and  his  escape  from  justice.1 

The  same  question  came  up,  in  1635,  under  Governor  Sebastian 
Hurtado  de  Corcuera,  whose  stormy  term  of  office  was  a  continu- 
ous succession  of  broils  with  the  several  ecclesiastical  jurisdictions. 
The  Archbishop  Hernando  Guerrero  was  engaged  in  a  mortal 
struggle,  first  with  the  governor  and  then  with  the  Jesuits,  in 
which  his  experience  singularly  resembled  that  of  Bishop  Palafox 
of  Puebla.  He  was  twice  excommunicated,  his  temporalities 
were  seized  and  he  was  relegated  for  a  time  to  Corregidor  Island. 
Compelled  to  a  humiliating  submission,  he  took  the  precaution 
of  making  a  preliminary  protest  before  the  notary  Diego  de  Rueda, 
whereupon  the  governor  seized  Rueda  and  threw  him  into  the 
castle  of  Santiago.  It  chanced  that  he  was  a  familiar;  the  com- 
missioner, Fray  Francisco  de  Herrera,  claimed  him  and  excom- 
municated the  juez  conservador  of  the  Jesuits,  who  had  excom- 
municated the  archbishop.  The  juez  yielded  to  the  superior 
jurisdiction  of  the  Inquisition  and  ordered  Rueda  released,  but 
the  Governor  stood  firm  and  when  Herrera  sent  two  frailes  of  his 
order  with  a  demand  for  the  prisoner,  Corcuera  seized  them  and 
sent  them  to  Cavite  with  orders  to  confine  them  in  their  convent.2 


1  MSS.  of  Royal  Library  of  Munich,  Cod.  Hisp.  79. 

2  Juan  de  la  Conception,  V,  276,  278.     Puigblanch  (La  Inquisicion  sin  Mascara, 
Cddiz,  1811,  p.  402)  is  in  error  in  attributing  the  persecution  of  Archbishop 
Guerrero  to  the  Inquisition  and  has  misapprehended  Palafox's  allusion  to  it. 
In  both  cases  it  was  the  Jesuits  acting  through  jueces  conservadores,  who,  by  a 
monstrous  abuse,  assumed  to  exercise  full  papal  powers,  but  in  Mexico  the 
Inquisition  was  with  them  and  in  Manila  it  was  against  them. 

The  ecclesiastics  had  full  revenge  on  Governor  Corcuera  when,  in  1644,  he 
was  succeeded  by  Diego  Fajardo.  In  fortifying  Manila  against  an  expected 
attack  by  the  Dutch,  his  lines  ran  through  an  Augustinian  convent.  He  offered 
the  frailes  another  house,  but  they  refused  to  move  and  he  tore  down  the  building 


310  THE  PHILIPPINES 

This  was  probably  but  a  small  part  of  Herrera's  contests  with 
the  civil  power  for,  in  1636,  Corcuera  applied  to  the  Mexican 
tribunal  asking  that  frailes  be  no  longer  appointed  as  commis- 
sioners, on  account  of  the  disturbances  which  they  excited;  if 
clerics  of  prudence  were  selected,  peace  would  be  preserved  and 
the  scandals  caused  by  the  Dominicans  would  be  averted.  In 
1638  the  Council  of  Indies  renewed  the  request  to  Philip  IV, 
asking  that  prebendaries  of  the  churches  should  be  chosen;  Philip 
sent  corresponding  instructions  to  the  Suprema  but,  on  its  remon- 
strating, he  referred  the  matter  back  to  the  Council  and  nothing 
was  done.1 

Corcuera's  successor,  Diego  Fajardo,  had  an  opportunity  of 
learning  the  extent  to  which  the  audacity  of  a  commissioner  could 
reach,  and  the  utter  disregard  of  all  considerations  of  public  policy. 
About  1650,  an  order  came  to  the  commissioner  to  seize,  with  the 
utmost  secrecy,  the  governor  of  one  of  the  provinces,  who  was 
also  commandant  of  a  fortified  post.  The  commissioner  quietly 
summoned  his  alguazil  mayor  and  a  sufficient  number  of  familiars, 
sailed  for  the  province,  surprised  the  governor  in  his  bed,  carried 
him  off  and  imprisoned  him  in  a  convent  until  there  should  be  a 
vessel  sailing  for  Acapulco.  Fajardo  was  an  irritable  and  pas- 
sionate soldier,  whose  governorship  was  a  continuous  broil  with 
the  warring  jurisdictions  of  the  colony,  and  who  could  appreciate 
the  risk  of  depriving  a  fortified  place  of  its  commander,  at  a 
time  of  perpetual  warfare  with  the  Dutch  and  the  natives.  His 
wrath  was  expected  to  be  extreme  at  the  contempt  thus  shown 
for  his  office  and  for  the  safety  of  the  colony,  but  his  reverential 
fear  of  the  Inquisition  overcame  all  other  considerations  and, 
when  informed  of  the  matter,  he  gently  rebuked  the  commissioner 
for  not  having  afforded  him  the  opportunity  of  earning  the  graces 
and  indulgences  granted  for  participation  in  so  pious  a  work,  as 


about  their  ears.     When  out  of  office  they  prosecuted  him  and  obtained  a  verdict 
of  25,000  pesos.     He  must  have  been  a  rarely  honest  governor,  for  he  was  unable 
to  pay  it  and  they  kept  him  in  harsh  gaol  for  five  years.    On  his  liberation,  Philip 
IV  appointed  him  Governor  of  the  Canaries. — Concepcion,  VI,  185-93. 
1  Medina,  op,  cit.,  p.  46. — Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  21,  fol.  154. 


IMPRISONMENT  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  31 1 

he  would  have  eagerly  served  as  an  alguazil  in  making  the 
arrest.1 

Yet  perhaps  the  most  troublesome  of  the  commissioners  with 
whom  the  Inquisition  afflicted  the  islands  was  the  Augustinian 
Fray  Jose  de  Paternina  Samaniego.  He  was  grossly  ignorant  and 
had  led  a  disorderly  life  in  both  Spain  and  Mexico.  His  fellow 
Augustinian,  Fray  Cristobal  de  Leon,  told  him  that  he  was 
unworthy  to  occupy  so  high  an  office,  for  he  was  an  apostate 
whom  the  General  of  the  Order  had  condemned  to  the  galleys 
when  visiting  the  convents  of  Old  Castile,  whereupon  he  accused 
Cristobal  to  the  provincial  as  a  Jew  and  a  usurer,  causing  his 
imprisonment  with  such  harshness  that  it  cost  him  his  life.  Yet 
this  was  the  man  whom  the  inquisitor-general  sent  to  the  Philip- 
pines, in  1663,  as  commissioner.  His  unfitness  soon  manifested 
itself,  and  his  prelates  wrote  to  the  Mexican  tribunal  recom- 
mending his  replacement;  other  remonstrances  were  sent  to  the 
Suprema,  which  ordered  the  collection  of  material  against  him, 
and  nothing  further  was  done.2 

On  board  the  ship  which  carried  Paternina  to  Manila  there 
was  another  passenger,  Don  Diego  Salcedo,  a  Fleming  who,  as 
maese  de  campo,  had  rendered  distinguished  service  in  the  Flemish 
wars,  and  who  was  coming  to  the  Philippines  as  governor.  The 
two  men  conceived  a  mutual  dislike  which  was  heightened  when 
Salcedo  dismissed  from  command  of  the  fleet  Don  Andres  de 
Medina,  who  was  a  close  friend  of  the  commissioner,  and  refused 
employment  to  his  nephew,  Gonzalez  Samaniego.  Still  bitterer 
grew  his  hatred  when  Salcedo  succeeded  him  in  the  favors  of  a 
married  woman,  whose  paramour  he  had  been,  and  he  openly 
declared  that  he  would  be  revenged. 

Salcedo  was  arbitrary  and  covetous;  he  must  have  made  full 
use  of  the  opportunities  afforded  by  his  position,  for  at  his  death 
his  fortune  was  reckoned  at  700,000  pesos — much  of  which  he 
had  the  prudence  to  remit  to  Mexico.  He  was  not  popular; 
he  was  speedily  involved  in  the  dissensions  which  seemed  inevi- 

1  Juan  de  la  Concepcion,  VI,  316.  2  Medina,  op.  cit.,  pp.  84-6. 


312  THE  PHILIPPINES 

table,  with  Archbishop  Poblete,  and  a  faction  was  formed  against 
him  at  the  head  of  which  stood  the  commissioner.  A  conspiracy 
for  his  ruin  was  organized  and  in  February,  1666,  there  came  to 
the  Mexican  tribunal  letters  from  Paternina,  from  the  archiepis- 
copal  notary  and  from  the  Castellan  of  Manila  accusing  him  of 
indifference  to  the  service  of  God  and  the  king  and  of  his  communi- 
cation with  Dutch  heretics.  Then  the  archbishop,  in  a  letter  of 
June  20,  1666,  to  the  inquisitor-general,  represented  that  Salcedo 
surrounded  himself  with  Flemings  and  Dutchmen,  one  of  whom 
was  a  Calvinist;  that  he  never  attended  mass  on  feast-days  or 
heard  sermons;  it  was  not  known  that  he  confessed  or  took  com- 
munion except  at  Easter;  that  he  created  scandal  by  his  relations 
with  a  married  woman  and  that  his  cupidity  was  insatiable. 
This  brought  from  the  queen-regent  a  letter  of  November  11, 1666, 
to  Salcedo,  reprimanding  him  for  his  disregard  of  church  obser- 
vances, but  nothing  more.  Paternina  sent  fresh  accusations  to 
the  tribunal,  and  the  archbishop  and  the  Bishop  of  Cebu  wrote 
to  the  Viceroy  of  Mexico;  then  the  tribunal  ordered  its  commis- 
sioner at  Acapulco  to  examine  secretly  the  passengers  and  crews 
of  vessels  arriving  from  the  Philippines  and  all  the  accumulation 
was  sent  to  the  Suprema  which,  on  November  22,  1667,  ordered 
the  case  to  be  suspended;  Paternina  must  act  with  caution  and, 
if  he  obtained  further  information,  he  was  to  forward  it. 

The  failure  of  his  plans  thus  far  showed  Paternina  that  he  must 
assume  the  responsibility.  Archbishop  Poblete  died  December  8, 
1667,  and  it  was  not  until  September,  1668,  that  the  commissioner 
was  ready  to  take  vigorous  action,  assured  of  the  support  of  two 
judges  of  the  Audiencia  who  hoped  to  succeed  to  power,  of  high 
officials  with  whom  Salcedo  had  quarrelled,  and  of  individuals 
to  whom  promises  were  made  of  offices,  encomiendas  and  other 
advantages,  while  there  was  the  enticing  prospect  of  plunder 
in  the  sequestration  of  the  governor's  fortune.  It  was  not  difficult 
to  obtain  from  his  enemies  evidence  such  as  it  was — evidence  which 
the  Mexican  tribunal  subsequently  pronounced  not  only  to  be 
factitious  on  its  face,  but  to  amount  at  most  only  to  a  presumption 


IMPRISONMENT  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  313 

plusquam  leve.  This  was  submitted,  September  28th,  to  nine 
frailes  as  calificadores,  some  of  whom  pronounced  the  accused  to 
be  vehemently  suspect  of  the  errors  of  Luther  and  Calvin.  Then 
three  consultors  were  called  together — the  Dean  Jose  Millan  de 
Poblete,  nephew  of  the  archbishop,  the  archiepiscopal  provisor, 
Francisco  Pizarro  de  Orellano,  and  the  Licenciado  Manuel  Suarez 
de  Olivera,  from  whom  Salcedo  had  taken  12,000  pesos  and  who 
was  soon  afterwards  prosecuted  for  Judaism.  These  worthies  on 
October  6th  decided  that  the  commissioner  could  proceed  to  arrest, 
seeing  that  the  three  prescribed  conditions  were  more  than  ful- 
filled. Of  these  conditions  the  most  important,  in  the  present 
case,  was  the  danger  of  immediate  escape  of  the  accused,  for 
which,  as  an  afterthought,  there  was  subsequently  collected  testi- 
mony so  transparently  futile  that  the  Mexican  tribunal  described 
the  danger  of  flight  as  a  mere  baseless  pretext. 

The  forms  having  thus  been  observed,  Paternina,  on  October 
8th,  issued  the  warrant  of  arrest  addressed  to  the  Admiral  Viz- 
carra  y  Leiva  as  alguazil  mayor — Vizcarra  having  been  one  of 
the  principal  witnesses.  It  ordered  him  to  seize  Salcedo  wherever 
he  could  be  found,  to  sequestrate  his  property  and  deliver  it  to 
Fray  Mateo  Ballon,  guardian  of  the  Franciscan  convent.  Salcedo 
was  aware  of  the  machinations  against  him,  but  imagined  himself 
in  full  security  and  took  no  precautions.  The  warrant  was 
delivered  to  the  admiral  at  9  P.M.  on  October  9th  and  between 
12  and  1  A.M.  he  entered  the  palace  with  a  band  of  Franciscan 
frailes  armed  with  pikes,  swords  and  bucklers.  They  seized  Sal- 
cedo in  bed,  fettered  him  and,  without  allowing  him  to  dress, 
carried  him  as  he  was  in  a  hammock  to  the  Franciscan  convent 
and  threw  him  into  a  narrow  cell.  After  a  few  days  he  was 
removed  to  the  house  of  the  Capitan  Diego  de  Palencia,  his 
declared  enemy,  and  then  to  the  Augustinian  convent  of  San 
Pablo,  where  Paternina  kept  him  incomunicado  and  chained  to 
the  wall.  The  day  of  the  arrest  the  judges  ordered  the  bells  of 
the  cathedral  to  be  rung  as  a  sign  of  rejoicing  that  they  had 
assumed  the  government.  In  fact,  one  of  the  judges,  Juan  Man- 


314  THE  PHILIPPINES 

uel  de  la  Pena  Bonifaz,  an  accomplice  in  the  conspiracy,  assumed 
the  nominal  government  and  there  ensued  a  period  of  terror  for 
all  who  were  not  of  their  faction.  Paternina  became  the  virtual 
ruler  and  he  inspired  general  fear  by  banishing  ten  or  twelve 
of  the  principal  citizens,  by  forbidding  any  one  to  speak  of  the 
affair  under  heavy  penalties  and  excommunication,  and  by  bring- 
ing charges  against  a  number  of  persons  of  being  hostile  to  the 
Inquisition.  The  rich  sequestration  became  an  object  of  plunder. 
A  nephew  of  Bonifaz  profited  largely  from  it,  nor  was  Paternina 
neglectful  of  the  chance,  for  we  happen  to  hear  of  his  entrusting 
20,000  pesos  to  the  Capitan  Pedro  Quintero,  to  be  used  for  his 
benefit,  and  also  of  his  extorting  bribes  from  shipmasters  for 
delivering  to  them  goods  embargoed  with  those  of  the  governor. 
In  short,  as  the  Mexican  tribunal  reported  to  the  Suprema,  they 
committed  a  thousand  iniquities. 

How  long  Salcedo  lay  in  his  chains  does  not  appear,  but  it 
must  have  been  more  than  eighteen  months,  for  he  was  probably 
shipped  to  Mexico  during  the  summer  of  1670.  He  died  at  sea 
November  24  of  that  year,  making  a  most  Christian  end,  for  he 
confessed  three  times.  A  further  proof  of  his  orthodoxy  may  be 
found  in  the  fact  that  he  appointed  as  his  executor  the  Mexican 
Inquisitor  Ortega  Montanes — a  position  which  the  Suprema  for- 
bade him  to  accept — and  the  estate  was  handed  over,  when  the 
sequestration  was  lifted,  October  31, 1671,  to  Don  Geronimo  Pardo, 
Auditor  of  the  Audiencia,  who  held  powers  from  Salcedo's  sister 
and  three  brothers. 

The  vessel  by  which  Salcedo  was  shipped  did  not  reach  Acapulco 
until  January  7,  1671,  being  the  first  that  had  come  for  two  years. 
It  brought  the  earliest  direct  intelligence  of  the  events  at  Manila 
and  the  report  of  Paternina,  but  the  news  had  already  arrived 
there  by  way  of  Batavia,  Holland  and  Madrid.  In  Madrid  it 
had  naturally  aroused  the  Council  of  Indies  which  presented  to 
the  queen-regent  a  consulta  embracing  three  propositions:  I.  If 
the  commissioner  made  the  arrest  without  orders  from  the  tribu- 
nal, he  should  be  severely  punished  for  exposing  the  colony  to 


IMPRISONMENT  OF  THE  GOVERNOR  315 

risks  so  great.  II.  If  the  arrest  was  by  order  of  the  tribunal, 
it  should  have  notified  the  Viceroy  of  Mexico  in  order  that  he 
might  make  provision  for  simultaneously  filling  the  vacancy. 
III.  That  precise  instructions  for  the  future  should  be  given  for 
the  arrest  of  persons  of  that  rank,  in  conformity  with  the  royal 
ce*dulas  and  concordias  providing  for  such  cases.  To  this  the 
Suprema,  still  completely  in  the  dark  as  to  the  circumstances  of 
the  case,  replied  somewhat  superciliously  that,  if  the  commissioner 
had  exceeded  his  duty,  he  would  be  punished  appropriately;  that 
the  arrest  was  not  ordered  by  the  tribunal  but,  if  it  had  been,  no 
notice  was  due  to  the  viceroy  in  matters  of  faith;  the  cedula  of 
April  2,  1664,  provided  for  the  government  of  the  Philippines  in 
cases  of  vacancy,  which  is  all  that  human  foresight  can  anticipate. 
No  new  instructions  were  necessary,  as  such  cases  were  already 
provided  for  in  the  existing  regulations;  sentences  on  persons  of 
the  rank  of  Don  Diego  Salcedo  were  not  executed  without  con- 
sulting the  Suprema,  except  when  irremediable  injury  might  be 
anticipated  from  delay,  and  it  was  an  accepted  rule  that,  in 
important  cases  of  faith,  all  such  personages  were  subjected  to 
the  Inquisition.  To  this  the  Council  of  Indies  rejoined  by  insist- 
ing that  it  should  not  be  left  to  the  discretion  of  a  commissioner 
to  determine  whether  the  danger  of  delay  justified  arresting  a 
governor  and  imperilling  the  safety  of  the  colony;  the  tribunal 
should  give  notice  to  the  viceroy,  without  violating  the  secrecy 
of  the  Inquisition,  and  it  concluded  by  asking  that  definite  instruc- 
tions be  given  to  the  inquisitor-general  and  Suprema  that  in  mat- 
ters of  such  importance  such  action  should  be  taken  as  would 
avoid  the  danger  of  a  recurrence  of  similar  proceedings.  Even 
the  Council  of  Indies  did  not  venture  to  hint  that  the  governor 
of  an  important  colony,  if  suspected  of  heresy,  could  not  be 
suddenly  arrested,  and  it  only  objected  to  this  being  done  without 
preliminary  precautions. 

In  June,  1670,  the  news  of  Salcedo's  arrest  filtered  through 
Madrid  to  Mexico  but  it  was  not  until  January  7, 1671,  that  the 
official  report  from  Paternina  reached  Acapulco.  The  tribunal, 


316  THE  PHILIPPINES 

in  forwarding,  January  18th,  an  abstract  of  this  to  the  Suprema, 
made  haste  to  exculpate  itself  from  all  responsibility,  pronoun- 
cing the  whole  affair  to  be  the  greatest  abuse  ever  committed  by 
an  official,  especially  by  one  of  the  Inquisition,  a  trampling  on 
justice,  with  grievous  discredit  to  the  prudence  and  equitable 
procedure  of  the  Holy  Office,  arising  from  hatred  of  Salcedo  and 
carried  out  by  a  conspiracy  between  Paternina  and  the  judges 
who  desired  to  seize  the  government.  This  rendered  necessary 
exemplary  punishment,  so  that  all  might  understand  that  the 
tribunal  did  not  undertake  to  punish  crimes  that  did  not  pertain 
to  it,  nor  serve  as  an  instrument  for  the  gratification  of  passion, 
and  this  demonstration  should  be  made  in  Manila,  in  order  that 
the  honor  and  fame  of  Salcedo  might  be  restored,  although  he 
had  lost  life  and  fortune.  The  tribunal  therefore,  while  awaiting 
instructions,  proposed  to  suspend  Paternina  and  give  his  office 
to  another,  with  orders  to  shut  him  up  in  a  convent  and  also  to 
raise  the  sequestration.  This  it  did  and  appointed  as  his  successor 
Fray  Felipe  Pardo,  though  when  the  Suprema,  June  4,  1671,  con- 
firmed the  suspension,  with  incredible  blindness,  it  replaced  him 
with  the  Dean  Jose  Millan  de  Poblete,  who  had  been  his  active 
accomplice.  Pardo  however  probably  retained  the  office,  as  the 
dean  had  been  promoted  to  the  bishopric  of  Canaries,  and  one  of 
the  results  of  the  affair  was  to  transfer  the  commissionership  from 
the  Augustinians  to  the  Dominicans. 

Paternina  escaped  the  punishment  which  he  merited  for  he  died, 
January  18, 1674,  like  his  victim,  on  the  voyage  to  Acapulco.  The 
Suprema  had  ordered  his  imprisonment  and  trial,  but  the  sen- 
tence was  not  to  be  executed  without  its  confirmation.  Despite 
its  assurance  to  the  Council  of  Indies  that  nothing  more  was  neces- 
sary to  regulate  arrests  of  governors,  it  issued,  under  pressure 
from  the  queen-regent,  June  30,  1671,  a  carta  acordada  prescrib- 
ing special  rules  for  such  occasions.  Meanwhile  in  Manila  there 
had  been  a  natural  revulsion.  The  new  governor,  Manuel  de 
Leon  y  Saravia,  took  full  advantage  of  the  opportunity  to  emanci- 
pate the  secular  power  from  the  predominance  of  the  ecclesiastical. 


JANSENISM  IN  CHINA  317 

He  withdrew  the  sequestrated  property  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
treasurer  of  the  Inquisition;  he  released  Juan  de  Berestain  who 
had  been  imprisoned  as  an  accomplice  of  Salcedo;  he  prosecuted 
and  banished  the  Franciscan  provincial  and  the  guardian  of  the 
Franciscan  convent,  and  the  good  frailes  complained  that  they 
were  persecuted  as  by  an  enemy;  and  we  are  assured  that  he 
reduced  the  power  of  the  Holy  Office  until  its  officials  were  so 
despised  that  if  they  had  to  arrest  the  vilest  individual  no  one 
would  help  them.1 

There  is  nothing  more  connected  with  the  Philippine  commis- 
sionership  that  is  worth  relating,  except  to  explain  the  disap- 
pearance of  its  records.  When  the  British  captured  Manila, 
October  5,  1762,  these  were  not  removed  from  the  city.  No 
attention  was  paid  to  them  at  first  but,  on  March  12,  1763,  an 
English  Catholic  and  Don  Cesar  Fallet,  who  had  been  penanced 
by  the  Inquisition,  informed  the  commissioner,  Fray  Pedro  Luis 
de  Serra,  that  he  was  about  to  be  arrested  and  the  archives  to  be 
seized,  whereupon  he  burnt  them  all  and  when  the  English  came 
they  found  nothing.  He  was  taken  before  the  authorities  where 
he  told  what  he  had  done;  the  tribunal  approved  of  his  action 
and  sent  him  renewed  instructions.2 

Although  not  directly  connected  with  our  subject,  there  is 
interest  in  observing  the  zeal  with  which  the  purity  of  the  faith 
was  conserved  in  the  Far  East.  The  commissioner,  Juan  de 
Arechederra,  in  a  letter  of  July  6,  1724,  from  Manila  to  Francisco 
xle  Garzeron,  inquisitor  and  inspector  of  Mexico,  encloses  a  sen- 
tence rendered  in  Canton  by  Fra  Giovanni  Bonaventura  de  Roma, 
as  delegate  judge  and  commissioner  of  Giovanni  de  Cazal,  Bishop 
of  Macao,  on  Antoine  Guigue,  a  French  missionary  convicted  of 


1  Medina,  op.  cit.,  pp.  87-130. — MSS.  of  Royal  Library  of  Munich,  Cod.  Hispan. 
79.— Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  60,  fol.  209,  249.     It  is  perhaps 
worth  remarking  that  Juan  de  la  Concepcion  makes  no  allusion  to  this  episode, 
so  prominent  in  the  history  of  the  Colony  and  so  little  creditable  to  his  Augus- 
tinian  Order. 

2  Medina,  op.  cit.,  pp.  156-7. 


318  THE  PHILIPPINES 

Jansenism.  Guigue,  it  appears,  had  obeyed  orders  in  publishing 
the  appeal  of  his  archbishop,  Cardinal  Noailles,  to  a  future  council 
against  the  bull  Unigenitus,  he  had  maintained  that  councils  are 
superior  to  popes,  that  popes  sometimes  erred  and  other  Jansenist 
heresies,  besides  receiving  and  circulating  Jansenist  books.  More- 
over it  was  asserted  that  he  had  been  guilty  of  solicitation  when 
on  missions  in  the  interior.  He  had  not  obeyed  the  citations  and 
had  allowed  the  trial  to  go  by  default,  wherefore  his  sentence 
was  publicly  read,  March  1,  1724,  in  the  church  Siao  Nan  Muen  of 
Canton.  He  was  suspended  from  all  priestly  functions,  he  was 
ordered  to  leave  the  province  and  betake  himself  to  a  convent  in 
which  he  was  to  remain,  performing  certain  spiritual  exercises, 
until  he  had  satisfied  the  pope,  and  all  this  under  penalty  of  per- 
petual imprisonment  for  disobedience.1  The  Emperor  of  China 
at  the  time  was  ordering  all  Christian  missionaries  to  leave  his 
dominions,  but  the  common  danger  was  insufficient  to  allay  the 
strife  arising  from  Pasquier  Quesnel's  speculations  on  sufficing 
attrition. 

1  MS.,  penes  me. 


CHAPTER    VII. 
PERU. 

WHEN,  on  January  9,  1570,  Servan  de  Cerezuela  arrived  at 
Lima  to  open  a  tribunal  of  the  Inquisition,  the  condition  of 
Spanish  South  America  was  such  as  to  call  for  energetic  action 
if  the  colony  was  to  respond  to  the  hopes  of  those  who  had  so 
earnestly  urged  the  Christianization  of  the  New  World.  The 
establishment  there  of  the  Holy  Office  had  been  asked  for  by 
many  who  viewed  with  dismay  the  prevailing  demoralization, 
and  we  shall  see  whether  its  influence  proved  to  be  for  good  or 
for  evil.  Peru  had  been  conquered  by  adventurers  inflamed 
with  the  thirst  of  gold,  who  in  the  eager  search  for  wealth  had 
thrown  off  the  restraints  of  civilized  life.  The  Church  exercised 
little  or  no  moral  power  for,  as  the  existing  Viceroy,  Francisco 
de  Toledo,  reported,  he  found  on  his  arrival  that  the  clerics  and 
frailes,  bishops  and  prelates,  were  lords  of  the  spiritual  and 
acknowledged  no  superior  in  the  temporal.  The  king  was  exposed 
to  constant  outlay  in  granting  free  passage  by  every  fleet  to  great 
numbers  of  clerics  and  frailes  who  came  under  the  pretext  of  con- 
verting and  teaching  the  Indians,  but,  in  reality,  many  devoted 
themselves  to  accumulating  wealth,  plucking  the  Indians  in  the 
endeavor  to  return  to  Spain  with  fortunes.  These  priests  kept 
prisons,  alguaziles  and  chains,  seizing  and  punishing  all  who 
offended  them  and  there  was  no  one  to  call  them  to  account. 
The  bishops  pretended  to  have  royal  licences  to  return  to  Spain, 
laden  with  the  silver  which  they  had  not  already  gathered  and 
despatched  in  advance,  and  it  was  the  same  with  the  frailes.1 


1  Medina,  Inquisicion  en  las  Provincias  del  Plata,  pp.  43-7. 
Thanks  to  the  researches  of  native  scholars  there  is  ample  material  for  the 
history  of  the  South  American  Inquisition.     The  most  prominent  of  these  gentle- 

(319) 


320  PERU 

This  deplorable  statement  is  confirmed  and  strengthened  by 
Toledo's  successor  in  the  vice-royalty,  the  Count  del  Villar,  in 
1588.  The  secular  clergy,  he  says,  from  the  bishops  to  the  lower 
grades,  have  come  to  Peru,  not  to  save  the  souls  of  the  Indians 
but  to  gain  money  in  any  manner  and  return  to  Spain,  while 
those  who  are  ordained  in  the  country  are  mostly  soldiers  dis- 
charged for  ill-conduct  or  men  of  bad  character.  The  regular 
Orders  are  no  better,  except  to  some  extent,  the  Franciscans  and 
more  especially  the  Jesuits.  The  royal  officials  use  their  positions 
to  make  money  and  oppress  the  people.  Few  immigrants  seem 
to  come  with  the  intention  of  honest  labor,  but  are  mostly  vagrants 
living  on  the  hospitality  of  those  who  will  receive  them.  The 
descendants  of  the  conquistadores  claim  positions  in  virtue  of  the 
services  of  their  ancestors  and,  as  they  increase  in  number  with 
each  generation,  it  is  impossible  to  satisfy  them  or  the  impostors 
who  pretend  to  be  descendants.  With  all  this  the  Christianiza- 

men  is  Don  Jose"  Toribio  Medina  who  has  gathered  a  wealth  of  documents  in  the 
Spanish  archives  on  which  are  based  the  works  to  which  I  am  principally  in- 
debted. These  are 

"Historia  del  Tribunal  del  Santo  Oficio  de  la  Inquisicion  de  Lima  (1569-1820)." 
2  vols.,  8vo,  Santiago  de  Chile,  1887. 

"Historia  del  Tribunal  del  Santo  Oficio  de  la  Inquisicion  en  Chile."  2  vols., 
8vo,  Santiago  de  Chile,  1890. 

"El  Tribunal  del  Santo  Oficio  de  la  Inquisicion  en  las  Provincias  del  Plata." 
1  vol.,  8vo,  Santiago  de  Chile,  1900. 

"Historia  del  Santo  Oficio  de  la  Inquisicion  de  Cartagena  de  las  Indias."  1  vol., 
12mo,  Santiago  de  Chile,  1899. 

Don  Ricardo  Palma  of  Lima  has  contributed  a  useful  compendium — "Afiales 
de  la  Inquisicion  de  Lima,"  Lima,  1863.  Third  edition,  Madrid,  1897. 

Don  Vicuna  Mackenna  has  given  some  exceedingly  curious  details  of  the  pro- 
cedure of  the  tribunal  in  his  "Francisco  Moyen  6  lo  que  hie"  la  Inquisicion  en 
America,"  Valparaiso,  1868,  of  which  an  English  translation  by  Dr.  James  W. 
Duffy  appeared  in  London  in  1869. 

Various  relations  of  autos  de  fe  have  been  reprinted  in  the  "Documentos  Litera- 
rios  del  Peru/'  Tomo  VII,  Lima,  1876. 

Unfortunately,  the  main  source  of  information,  the  records  of  the  tribunal 
itself,  are  no  longer  available.  They  were  preserved  almost  intact,  at  the  sup- 
pression in  1820,  and  were  lodged  in  the  Archivo  nacional,  in  the  convent  of  San 
Agustin,  but  were  dispersed  in  1881  when  Lima  was  occupied  by  the  Chilian  army. 
Before  this  event,  through  the  kindness  of  Doctor  Paz-Soldan,  I  procured  copies 
of  some  interesting  documents,  referred  to  in  the  following  pages  under  the  old 
numbers.  The  Spanish  archives  have  also  furnished  me  some  material. 


EPISCOPAL  INQUISITION  321 

tion  of  the  Indians  makes  little  or  no  progress.  Altogether 
he  assumes  that  the  immigration,  both  lay  and  clerical,  is  thor- 
oughly vicious,  while  the  Creoles,  or  native  whites,  are  no  better.1 
It  is  a  community  living  in  idle  self-indulgence  on  the  Indians 
and  the  Government. 

As  regards  matters  of  faith,  in  the  absence  of  the  Inquisition, 
the  jurisdiction  over  heresy,  inherent  in  the  episcopal  office,  had 
reasserted  itself  and  was  exercised  by  the  bishops.  As  early  as 
May  15,  1539,  the  Dominican  Provincial,  Caspar  de  Carvajal, 
is  found  acting  as  inquisitor  for  the  Bishop  Fray  Vicente  de 
Valverde  and,  on  October  23  of  the  same  year,  the  secular  magis- 
trates honored  a  demand  from  the  bishop  for  the  process  against 
Captain  Mercadillo,  in  order  that,  as  inquisitor,  he  should  take 
cognizance  of  certain  ebullitions  of  blasphemy.  This  inquisi- 
torial power  was  exercised  to  its  highest  expression,  for,  in  1548, 
the  first  Archbishop,  Geronimo  de  Loaisa,  held  an  auto  de  fe  in 
Lima,  wherein  Jan  Millar,  a  Fleming,  was  burnt  for  Protestantism. 
In  1560  the  episcopal  Provisor  of  Cuzco  held  an  auto  in  which 
were  relaxed  the  Morisco  Alvaro  Gonzalez  and  the  mulatto  Luis 
Solano  as  dogmatizing  Mahometans ;  in  1564  he  celebrated  another 
in  which  Vasco  Sudrez,  Antonio  Hernandez  and  Alonso  de  Cieza 
were  penanced,  while  Lope  de  la  Pena  was  reconciled  for  Islam. 
In  1565  the  Dean  of  la  Plata  reconciled  Juan  Bautista  for  Prot- 
estantism and  condemned  him  to  confiscation  and  perpetual  prison 
and  sanbenito.2  Evidently  the  episcopal  Inquisition  was  active; 
in  1567  the  synod  of  Lima  adopted  regulations  to  govern  its 
functions  and  when,  in  1583,  the  provincial  council,  under  St. 
Toribio,  confirmed  the  acts  of  that  synod,  it  was  obliged,  doubt- 
less on  representation  by  the  tribunal,  to  except  those  regulations 
as  matters  which  had  passed  beyond  its  control.3  The  bishops, 
however,  did  not  surrender  their  jurisdiction  without  impulsion, 


1  Medina,  Inquisicion  de  Lima,  II,  469-73. 

2  Ibidem,  I,  26;  La  Plata,  I,  16-18. 

*  Concil.  Limens.  Provin.  I,  Act.  n,  cap.  1;  Act.  v,  cap.  1  (Haroldus,  Lima 
Limata,  pp.  5,  42). 
21 


322 

for,  as  we  have  seen  (Mexico,  p.  199),  the  Suprema  was  obliged  to 
order  them,  in  1570,  to  transfer  all  cases  to  the  tribunal  and  it 
was  found  necessary  to  repeat  this  in  1586. 

When  the  transfer  was  made  there  were  four  cases  pending  in 
Lima  and  ninety-seven  in  Cuzco,  concerning  which  the  fiscal 
reported  that  the  Ordinaries  had  prosecuted  many  that  were  not 
matters  of  faith  and  were  habitually  settled  for  a  trivial  payment 
in  oil.  Inquisitor  Cerezuela  set  a  good  example  by  suspending 
three  and  ordering  the  rest  to  be  filed  for  reference  in  case  of 
relapse.1  One  of  the  cases  thus  inherited  by  the  tribunal  may  be 
briefly  sketched  as  affording  a  vivid  picture  of  the  methods  in 
vogue  and  the  use  made  of  the  Inquisition,  whether  episcopal  or 
Spanish. 

Francisco  de  Aguirre  was  one  of  the  prominent  conquistadores. 
He  had  come  well  equipped  to  Peru  in  1533,  he  had  borne  an 
active  share  in  the  conquest  of  Chile  and  then  in  that  of  the  exten- 
sive interior  province  known  as  Tucuman,  of  which  he  became 
governor.  Of  this  he  was  deprived,  but  about  1566  he  was  reap- 
pointed  on  the  occasion  of  an  Indian  revolt,  in  which  the  Spaniards 
were  murdered  and  only  a  handful  of  soldiers  held  out  in  the  town 
of  Santiago  del  Estero.  With  his  customary  energy  Aguirre  col- 
lected a  force,  defeated  the  Indians  in  a  battle,  in  which  he  lost  one 
of  his  sons,  and  re-established  the  Spanish  dominion.  Then  he 
headed  an  expedition  in  search  of  a  port  on  the  Atlantic  to  afford 
easier  access  to  the  territory,  but  when  near  his  destination  his 
troops  mutinied  and  carried  him  back  as  a  prisoner  to  Santiago 
del  Estero.  To  justify  this  the  mutineers  claimed  to  have  acted 
under  orders  of  the  Inquisition  of  the  Bishop  of  la  Plata,  with 
whom  Aguirre  had  quarrelled  on  the  subject  of  tithes.  There 
were  witnesses  in  plenty  to  hasty  and  irreverent  speeches  by  the 
veteran  soldier;  for  two  or  three  years  he  was  kept  in  prison,  at 
a  cost  to  him,  as  he  declared,  of  thirty  thousand  pesos,  and  on 
October  15,  1568,  by  judges  acting  under  commission  of  Bishop 
Navarrete  "inquisidor  ordinario  y  general"  he  was  sentenced. 

1  Medina,  La  Plata,  19. 


EPISCOPAL  INQUISITION  323 

His  imprisonment  was  accepted  as  a  punishment;  he  was  fined  in 
fifteen  hundred  pesos  and  costs  and  was  required  to  appear  as 
a  penitent  in  the  church  of  Santiago  del  Estero  and  make  formal 
abjuration  of  his  objectionable  speeches.  This  he  performed, 
but  on  the  pretext  of  informality  he  was  obliged  to  undergo  the 
humiliation  a  second  time,  April  1,  1569,  in  la  Plata.  Of  this  a 
notarial  act  was  sent  to  the  Council  of  Indies  to  show  that  he  was 
unfitted  to  be  Governor  of  Tucuman,  but  it  was  too  late,  for  in 
August  of  that  year  he  received  the  royal  confirmation  of  his 
appointment  with  orders  to  proceed  at  once  to  his  seat  of  govern- 
ment. On  the  march  a  cleric  with  an  order  from  the  bishop 
sought  to  stop  him,  but  he  disobeyed  and  paralyzed  the  unfor- 
tunate messenger  by  sternly  asking  him  "If  I  should  kill  a  cleric, 
what  would  be  the  penalty?" 

So  far  he  had  had  to  deal  with  the  episcopal  Inquisition  in  the 
hands  of  an  opposing  faction;  even  severer  experiences  were  in 
store  for  him  from  the  Holy  Office,  used  as  an  instrument  by  the 
Viceroy  Toledo  who  desired  to  get  rid  of  him.  One  of  the  earliest 
acts  of  the  Lima  tribunal  was  to  entertain  a  denunciation  of  him, 
in  which  his  intemperate  utterances  were  again  brought  forward, 
together  with  the  further  accusation  that  he  had  banished  from 
Tucuman  all  who  had  been  concerned  in  his  prosecution  and  that 
he  had  said  that  he  had  been  forced  to  confess  to  what  he  had  not 
done.  March  14,  1570,  Cerezuela  ordered  his  arrest  with  seques- 
tration of  property;  Toledo  undertook  to  execute  the  mandate 
and  in  reporting  to  the  king  stated  that  Aguirre's  government  was 
such  that  most  of  the  inhabitants  were  leaving  the  province. 
To  arrest  such  a  man  was  not  an  easy  matter,  but  it  was  effected 
and  he  was  brought  three  hundred  leagues  to  Lima.  Delays 
were  unavoidable  in  obtaining  and  ratifying  testimony  at  such 
a  distance,  through  a  hostile  Indian  country  which,  as  the  tribunal 
stated,  was  entered  only  once  a  year.  Aguirre  offered  to  waive 
the  formality  of  ratifying  the  testimony  in  order  to  expedite  the 
process,  but  the  fiscal  insisted  on  regularity  and  the  trial  dragged 
wearily  on,  as  new  evidence  came  in,  mostly  as  to  his  arbitrary 


324 

government  and  other  matters  with  which  the  tribunal  properly 
had  no  concern.  Aguirre  fell  dangerously  ill  and  was  transferred, 
July  19,  1572,  to  the  house  of  a  familiar,  where  he  was  kept 
strictly  incomunicado  and  from  which  he  was  brought  back,  April 
24,  1574,  to  listen  to  the  publication  of  evidence.  It  was  not 
until  late  in  1575  or  early  in  1576  that  sentence  was  rendered  con- 
demning him  to  hear  mass  as  a  penitent  on  a  feast-day  when  no 
services  were  allowed  in  any  other  church;  he  abjured  de  vehe- 
menti,  was  cast  in  all  costs,  was  recluded  for  four  months  in  a 
convent  and  was  banished  perpetually  from  Tucuman.  The 
trivial  character  of  the  charges  is  seen  in  the  special  stress  laid  on 
his  having  used  charms  to  cure  wounds  and  toothache,  which  he 
was  forbidden  to  do  in  future — innocent  charms,  as  he  explained, 
employed  only  because  no  physician  was  at  hand  and  surely 
pardonable  in  the  wild  warfare  in  which  he  had  worn  out  his  life. 
He  retired  to  the  city  of  Serena  which  he  had  founded,  old,  sick 
and  penniless.  He  had  spent  thirty-six  years  and  some  three 
hundred  thousand  pesos  in  the  king's  service;  three  of  his  sons, 
his  brother  and  three  nephews  had  died  in  the  same  service,  and 
he  was  too  poor  and  oppressed  with  debts  to  make  his  way  to 
court  and  ask  reward  for  his  labors.  To  complete  the  destruc- 
tion of  his  influence  his  two  remaining  sons  were  prosecuted  on 
frivolous  charges,  but  the  cases  seem  to  have  been  suspended  after 
the  desired  result  had  been  attained.  His  son-in-law,  Francisco 
de  Matienzo,  who  had  endeavored  to  prevent  his  arrest,  was  prose- 
cuted and  fined  in  three  hundred  pesos.  There  were  also  seven 
other  prosecutions  against  his  followers,  resulting  in  the  imposi- 
tion of  fines.1  Had  all  viceroys,  like  Francisco  de  Toledo,  known 
how  to  control  the  Inquisition  it  might  have  been  made  a  useful 
political  instrument  but,  as  we  shall  see,  succeeding  inquisitors 


1  Medina,  La  Plata,  pp.  21-41,  85-111. 

Another  distinguished  conquistador,  Felipe  de  Caceres,  was  prosecuted  by  Pedro 
Fernandez  de  la  Torre,  Bishop  of  la  Plata,  who  carried  him  to  Spain,  about  1580, 
but  died  on  the  passage  and  Cdceres  was  delivered  to  the  tribunal  of  Seville. — 
Ibidem,  p.  116. 


EPISCOPAL  INQUISITION  325 

preferred  to  follow  their  own  ends  and  it  became  a  perpetually 
disturbing  influence. 

The  bishops  did  not  willingly  acquiesce  in  the  surrender  of 
a  jurisdiction  which  could  be  so  profitably  employed.  That 
Archbishop  Loaiza  showed  a  recalcitrating  temper  is  manifested 
by  a  letter  of  the  Suprema  directing  that  he  should  not  style 
himself  "inquisidor  ordinario"  in  his  pastorals  and  edicts. 
Another  letter  permits  him  to  inspect  the  commissions  of  the 
inquisitors  and  their  instructions  if  he  desires,  but  it  must  be  in 
the  audience-chamber  as  they  are  not  to  be  removed  from  there, 
except  the  printed  instructions,  of  which  a  copy  may  be  given  to 
him  on  condition  of  his  allowing  no  one  to  see  it.  There  was 
evident  friction  despite  the  injunctions  of  the  Suprema  that  a 
good  understanding  should  be  maintained.1  This  was  increased 
when,  in  1574,  a  royal  cedula  addressed  to  the  bishops  ordered 
them  to  exercise  special  vigilance  and  make  secret  inquiry  about 
disguised  Lutheran  preachers  who  were  said  to  be  on  their  way 
to  Peru.  The  prelates  assumed  this  to  be  a  grant  of  renewed 
inquisitorial  power  and  undertook  to  exercise  it,  giving  rise  to 
no  little  trouble.  Sebastian  de  Lartaun,  Bishop  of  Cuzco,  not 
only  published  edicts  trespassing  on  inquisitorial  jurisdiction  but 
boasted  that,  if  the  inquisitors  came  into  his  diocese,  he  could 
punish  them,  and  he  arrested  and  imprisoned  in  chains  their 
commissioner  Pedro  de  Quiroga,  a  canon  of  his  cathedral,  publicly 
and  under  circumstances  creating  great  scandal.  The  tribunal 
retaliated  by  summoning  to  Lima  the  bishop's  provisor  Albornoz 
and  throwing  him  in  the  secret  prison;  furthermore  it  imprisoned 
the  priest  Luis  de  Arma,  who  had  assisted  in  chaining  Quiroga,  as 
well  as  the  episcopal  fiscal  Alonso  Duran  and  a  cleric  named 
Bejerano  for  the  same  offence,  to  which  the  bishop  responded 
by  seizing  Quiroga's  temporalities  and  forbidding  him  to  enter 
the  church.  The  tribunal,  in  1581,  reported  the  situation  to  the 
Suprema,  which  replied  that  nothing  was  to  be  conceded  to  the 
Ordinaries  save  what  was  allowed  by  the  laws  and  the  royal 

1  Archive  nacional  de  Lima,  Protocolo  223,  Expedu  5270. 


326  PERU 

c6dulas;  from  the  Bishop  of  Cuzco's  edict  the  matter  pertaining  to 
the  Inquisition  was  to  be  struck  out  and  he  was  to  be  duly  warned. 
A  second  notice  was  to  be  given  to  the  Bishop  of  Panamd 
of  the  ce*dulas  forbidding  his  interference  in  matters  of  faith 
and,  if  he  continued  to  disobey,  the  Suprema  was  to  be  advised. 
The  same  was  to  be  done  with  other  bishops  similarly  offending, 
and  special  attention  was  directed  to  the  acts  of  the  Bishops  of 
Popayan  and  Tucuman.  If  we  may  believe  the  reports  made  by 
the  tribunal  to  the  Suprema  the  episcopate  was  filled  with  most 
unworthy  wearers  of  the  mitre  and  the  Archbishop  of  New 
Granada  was  the  only  one  who  had  fully  obeyed  the  orders  to 
hand  over  all  inquisitorial  cases.  The  officials  of  the  Inquisition, 
it  said,  were  hated  equally  by  the  bishops  and  by  the  royal 
judges,  who  lost  no  opportunity  of  oppressing  and  humiliating 
them.1 

Thus  early  commenced  the  antagonism  between  the  Inquisition 
and  the  episcopate  which  continued  during  its  whole  career  to  be 
a  disturbing  element  in  the  Spanish  possessions.  In  1584  we 
find  Inquisitor  Ulloa  complaining  to  the  Suprema  of  the  action 
of  the  recent  provincial  council  of  Lima  in  secretly  writing  to 
the  king  about  the  evil  character  of  the  commissioners  selected. 
This,  he  asserts,  arose  from  his  refusal  of  the  request  of  the  Bishops 
of  Cuzco,  la  Plata  and  Tucuman  to  make  them  commissioners  in 
their  respective  dioceses.  The  bishops,  he  adds,  were  opposed 
to  the  introduction  of  the  Inquisition,  because  it  limited  their 
jurisdiction,  and  they  and  the  royal  courts  were  constantly  causing 
trouble  in  spite  of  the  extreme  modesty  and  deference  shown  by 
his  officials.2 

Such  was  the  soil  in  which  the  Inquisition  was  to  be  planted 
when  Philip  II  resolved  to  confer  upon  the  New  World  the  blessing 
of  the  institution.  Its  inception  bore  a  marked  resemblance  to 
that  of  Mexico.  January  28,  1569,  Inquisitor-general  Espinosa 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  173-177,  179-80. — Archivo  national  de  Lima,  ubi  sup. 
1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  424. 


ESTABLISHMENT  OF  THE  TRIBUNAL  327 

wrote  to  the  Licentiate  Servan  de  Cerezuela,  in  Oropesa,  that  the 
king  proposed  to  establish  a  tribunal  in  Peru  and  that  he  was 
selected  as  an  inquisitor,  with  a  salary  of  three  thousand  pesos, 
each  of  four  hundred  maravedis,  a  part  of  which  would  be  drawn 
from  the  fruits  of  a  prebend  in  Lima.  He  was  ordered  to  start 
without  delay  for  Seville,  whence  he  would  sail  with  a  colleague, 
a  fiscal  and  a  notary,  in  the  fleet  carrying  the  Viceroy  Francisco 
de  Toledo,  who  would  deliver  to  him  his  commission  and  instruc- 
tions. Similar  orders  were  sent  to  the  other  inquisitor,  Dr. 
Andres  de  Bustamente,  and  five  hundred  ducats  were  given  to 
each  to  defray  their  expenses.  Commands  were  issued  to  the 
bishops  to  surrender  all  cases  pertaining  to  the  tribunal;  to  the 
courts  not  to  interfere  with  the  confiscations;  to  the  viceroy  to 
render  it  all  favor  and  support  and  to  provide  a  proper  building 
for  its  occupancy  and  prisons;  to  all  officials  to  take  the  oath  of 
obedience  and  to  lend  whatever  aid  might  be  required.1 

The  fleet  sailed  March  19,  1569;  Dominica  was  reached  April 
28th,  Cartagena  May  8th  and  Nombre  de  Dios,  June  1st.  There 
their  funds  ran  out  and  no  one  would  lend  them  a  real  without 
interest  until  Judge  Barros  of  Panama  furnished  them  two  thou- 
sand pesos  out  of  moneys  deposited  in  his  court.  While  thus 
delayed  they  heard  several  cases  and  rendered  sentences.  Busta- 
mente with  the  notary  Arrieta  left  Nombre  de  Dios  on  June  23d, 
but  he  was  so  affected  by  the  escape  of  two  of  his  slaves,  as  we  are 
told,  that  he  fell  sick  and  died  on  June  30th.  Cerezuela  and  the 
fiscal  Alcedo  remained  to  attend  to  a  case  which  developed  itself 
on  the  day  fixed  for  their  departure.  Six  witnesses  testified 
that  a  Portuguese  named  Salvador  Mendez  Hernandez  had  been 
burnt  in  effigy  in  Seville;  they  arrested  him  and  wrote  to  Seville 
for  the  process,  but  as  they  had  no  arrangements  for  detaining 
him,  he  was  released  under  oath,  which  he  naturally  forfeited. 
Cerezuela  reached  Panama  on  July  18th,  when  he  summoned  the 
viceroy  and  the  judges  of  the  Audiencia  to  take  the  oath  of  obe- 
dience to  the  Inquisition.  On  the  22d  there  was  a  solemn  cere- 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  2-4. 


328  PERU 

mony,  with  a  procession  to  the  church  of  San  Francisco,  where 
his  commission  was  read,  he  issued  a  mandate  and  the  viceroy 
and  officials  and  the  people  all  took  the  oath.  Sail  was  made  from 
Panamd,  August  15th,  and  Lima  was  reached  November  28th. 
A  house  was  selected  and  the  viceroy  was  called  upon  to  give  it 
to  them;  another  adjoining  was  rented  for  the  officials  and,  on 
January  29,  1570,  there  was  a  solemn  function  in  the  cathedral, 
such  as  we  have  seen  in  Mexico,  when  the  tribunal  was  officially 
acknowledged,  its  authority  asserted  and  the  Edict  of  Faith  was 
published,  calling  upon  every  one  to  denounce  all  offenders  of 
whom  he  was  cognizant,  directly  or  indirectly.1 

Although  Cerezuela  was  accused  to  the  Suprema,  by  his  notary 
Arrieta,  as  wholly  ignorant  of  inquisitorial  practice,  of  allow- 
ing himself  to  be  easily  influenced,  and  of  neglecting  to  appoint 
familiars,  he  speedily  manifested  an  energy  inspiring  all  classes 
with  fear  of  a  tribunal  which  was  superior  to  all  distinctions  of 
station,  and  whose  jurisdiction  was  limited  only  by  its  own 
definitions.  Scarce  had  the  edict  been  published  when  arrests 
began  of  bigamists,  blasphemers  and  persons  whose  utterances 
were  not  cautiously  restrained — Alcedo,  the  fiscal,  reports  three 
in  one  day.  Two  canons  of  the  cathedral  and  their  advocate 
were  prosecuted  for  some  false  swearing  before  the  ecclesiastical 
court,  which  the  theologians  managed  to  find  heretical,  and,  in 
spite  of  the  intervention  of  the  archbishop,  Cerezuela  tried  them 
and  amerced  them  in  eight  hundred  pesos  for  the  benefit  of  the 
tribunal.  Then  he  prosecuted  two  royal  officials,  for  raising 
difficulties  in  supplying  his  demands  for  the  maintenance  of  poor 
prisoners,  and  fined  them  in  eighty  ducats.2  Presumably  he  de- 
sired to  produce  a  profound  impression  upon  the  public  and  for 
this  the  solemnity  of  a  public  auto  de  fe  was  essential.  This 
rendered  inadvisable  the  customary  prolonged  delays  of  inquisi- 
torial action  and  already,  on  November  15,  1573,  it  was  held  in 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  6-18. — See  also  Elkan  N.  Adler,  The  Inquisicion  in  Peru 
(Publications  of  the  American  Jewish  Historical  Society,  No.  12),  who  prints  a 
translation  of  the  special  instructions  of  the  Suprema. 

*  Medina,  Lima,  I,  29-31. 


THE  FIRST  A  UTO  DE  FE  329 

the  principal  plaza,  with  the  usual  oaths  administered  to  all 
present  and  the  preaching  of  a  sermon.  The  different  bodies  of 
dignitaries  of  course  quarreled  as  to  the  places  assigned  to  them, 
but  Cerezuela  settled  their  conflicting  pretensions  and  the  awful 
ceremony  was  performed  effectively.  The  penitents  were  not 
numerous.  The  Corsican,  Joan  Bautista,  had  been  penanced  for 
Protestantism  by  the  archbishop  and  again  had  been  sentenced  to 
perpetual  prison  by  the  Bishop  of  los  Charcas ;  now  as  an  impeni- 
tent, he  was  condemned  to  two  hundred  lashes  through  the  streets 
and  to  lifelong  galley-service.  The  Frenchman,  Jean  de  Lion,  for 
the  same  heresy  abjured  de  vehementi,  was  confined  for  ten  years 
to  the  city  of  Lima,  and  contributed  a  thousand  pesos  towards 
the  cost  of  erecting  the  staging  at  the  auto.  Ynes  de  los  Angeles 
received  a  hundred  lashes  for  bigamy,  and  Andres  de  Campos 
the  same  for  violating  the  secrecy  of  the  Inquisition.  The  crown- 
ing attraction  of  the  spectacle,  however,  was  another  Frenchman, 
Mathieu  Salado,  who  was  generally  reputed  to  be  insane.  He 
had  been  denounced  f or  "  Lutheranism"  in  May,  1570,  but  after 
arrest  and  examination  had  been  discharged  as  irresponsible. 
New  evidence  was  received  however  and,  in  November,  1571,  he 
was  again  put  on  trial.  He  held  that  Erasmus  and  Luther  were 
saints  enlightened  by  God;  he  denounced  the  popes,  the  clergy 
and  the  whole  establishment;  he  denied  purgatory  and  indul- 
gences, images  and  the  mass.  He  was  decided  to  be  of  sound 
mind  and,  as  he  was  pertinacious,  he  was  sentenced  to  relaxation 
after  a  preliminary  torture  in  caput  alienum,  all  of  which  was 
duly  executed,  but  whether  he  was  burnt  alive  or  after  strangu- 
lation we  are  not  informed.1 

The  tribunal  which  had  thus  asserted  its  power  was  necessarily 
organized  on  the  Castilian  pattern,  with  normally  two  inquisitors, 
a  fiscal  (or,  as  he  was  termed  in  later  times,  an  inquisitor-fiscal), 
a  notary  or  secretary,  a  receiver  of  confiscations  or  treasurer, 
an  ornamental  alguazil  mayor  and  another  for  work,  an  alcaide 


1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  49-55. 


330 

or  gaoler  with  assistants,  a  nuncio,  a  portero  or  apparitor,  an 
advocate  of  prisoners,  a  barber,  a  physician  and  a  surgeon.  These 
were  the  salaried  officials  and  in  addition  there  were  commissioners 
at  distant  points,  familiars,  consultores  and  calificadores.  There 
seems  to  have  been  an  effort  from  the  first  to  restrict  the  lists 
of  unsalaried  officials,  whose  overgrown  numbers  in  Spain  were 
the  source  of  constant  trouble,  owing  to  their  exemption  from 
the  secular  courts  and  being  justiciable  only  by  the  tribunal. 
Thus  the  consultores  were  limited  to  six  and  the  familiars  to 
twelve  in  the  city  of  Lima,  four  in  each  cathedral  city  and  one  in 
each  town  inhabited  by  Spaniards,  and  their  fuero  was  defined, 
as  in  Mexico,  to  be  that  of  the  Castilian  concordia  of  1553,  which 
limited,  to  a  considerable  extent,  their  exemption  in  criminal 
cases.1 

Distance  and  delay  in  communication  necessarily  rendered 
the  tribunal  more  independent  in  action  than  was  permitted  in 
Spain  at  this  time,  but  the  Suprema  endeavored  to  maintain 
supervision  and  subordination  as  far  as  it  could.  It  was  unavoid- 
able that  the  tribunal  should  be  allowed  to  appoint  to  the  minor 
and  unsalaried  positions,  but  its  appointments  were  reported  to 
the  Suprema,  which  thereupon  issued  the  commissions  and 
sometimes,  at  least,  made  appointments  itself.  In  the  original 
instructions  of  1570  power  was  granted  to  create  commissioners 
and  familiars;  in  1576  this  was  extended  to  notaries  and  other 
officials,  while  in  1589  it  appears  to  be  restricted  to  cases  of 
necessity  in  the  city  of  Lima.2  Yet  when  the  Suprema  chose  to 
exercise  the  appointing  power  it  had  no  hesitation,  as  when,  in 
1615,  it  ordered  Don  Gil  de  Amoraga  to  be  received  as  commis- 
sioner of  Panamd  and  Don  Fernando  Francisco  de  Ribadeneira 
as  commissioner  of  Tucuman,  if  the  place  was  vacant,  and  if  not, 
as  soon  as  it  should  become  so.  As  time  went  on,  cases  of  this 
kind  became  more  frequent.  As  regards  commissions,  a  letter 


1  Archive  nacional  de  Lima,  Protocolo  223,   Expedte  5270.— Palma,  Afiales, 
8-11.— Medina,  Lima,  I,  6. 
1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Legajo  1465,  fol.  23. 


INDEPENDENCE  OF  THE  TRIBUNAL  331 

of  May  26,  1620,  orders  that  the  physician,  the  barber  and  the 
surgeon  are  to  furnish  their  proofs  of  limpieza,  or  purity  of  blood, 
when  their  names  can  be  forwarded  and  the  inquisitor-general 
will  issue  their  commissions.  When,  in  1584,  the  tribunal 
granted  to  a  familiar  of  Panama"  the  title  of  alguazil,  with  a 
vara  alia  de  justicia,  or  the  privilege  of  carrying  a  tall  wand  as 
the  symbol  of  his  office,  the  audiencia  of  Panama"  complained  to 
the  king  and  the  Suprema  called  upon  the  tribunal  for  an  explana- 
tion, pending  which  the  vara  was  not  to  be  carried.1 

The  provisions  for  cases  which  in  Spain  were  referred  to  or 
appealed  to  the  Suprema  and  inquisitor-general  have  already 
been  detailed  in  the  chapter  on  Mexico  and  need  not  be  repeated 
here.  It  will  be  recalled  that  they  conferred  on  the  colonial 
tribunals  almost  complete  independence,  so  that  they  escaped 
the  encroachments  which  at  home  eventually  rendered  the  pro- 
vincial Inquisitions  scarce  more  than  bureaus  for  the  collection 
of  evidence  and  for  the  execution  of  the  decrees  of  the  Council. 
The  Suprema,  it  is  true,  occasionally  made  its  power  felt  by 
sending  out  a  visitador  or  inspector,  with  faculties  more  or  less 
extensive  and  by  removing  or  transferring  an  inquisitor  against 
whom  complaints  were  too  vigorous  to  be  disregarded,  but  the 
only  regular  supervision  that  could  be  exercised  lay  in  the  require- 
ment of  full  semi-annual  reports  of  the  business  of  the  tribunal 
and  the  condition  of  pending  cases.  It  may  be  questioned,  how- 
ever, whether  this  could  have  been  performed  with  regularity 
during  the  earlier  periods  for,  as  late  as  1680,  the  tribunal  was 
notified  that  an  arrangement  had  been  made  with  the  king  by  the 
consulado  of  Seville  whereby  despatches  could  be  sent  twice 
a  year.2 

The  Edict  of  Faith  was  ordered  to  be  published  regularly  in  all 
parish  and  conventual  churches,  a  command  which  was  doubtless 
obeyed  with  reasonable  regularity,  but  there  was  a  curious  ignor- 
ance displayed  of  the  vastness  of  South  America  and  its  lack  of 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  loc.  cit. 

J  Medina,  Lima,  I,  5. — Archive  national  de  Lima,  Protocolo  228,  Expte  5289. 


332 

means  of  intercommunication,  when  the  inquisitors  were  required 
to  perform  an  annual  visitation  of  their  district.  Of  course  this 
instruction  received  no  attention;  indeed  the  only  attempt 
recorded  is  that  of  Inquisitor  Ulloa,  who  found  it  convenient,  in 
1594,  to  be  absent  from  Lima  and  employed  his  time,  until  his 
death  in  1597,  in  wandering  over  the  land  and  harassing  the 
people.1 

As  in  Mexico,  Indians  were  excepted  from  inquisitorial  juris- 
diction and,  in  matters  of  faith,  were  subject  to  the  bishops. 
This  was  not  relished.  Fray  Juan  de  Vivero  wrote  to  Philip 
that  the  Inquisition  should  punish  them,  though  not  as  severely 
as  Spaniards.  The  notary  Arrieta  advised  Cerezuela  to  disregard 
the  instructions  and  to  prosecute  them,  just  as  he  had  seen  in 
Seville  unbaptized  slaves  punished  for  perverting  their  Christian 
comrades.  Cerezuela  reported  that  baptized  Indians  publicly 
persuaded  their  fellows  that  what  the  missionaries  told  them  was 
false,  but  the  Suprema  was  firm  and  ordered  him  not  to  interfere 
even  with  dogmatizers  who  told  their  people  not  to  believe  the 
missionaries.2 

Cerezuela's  zeal  was  also  rebuked  when  he  represented  that 
foreigners  who  came  to  Peru  usually  sought  at  once  to  penetrate 
into  the  interior,  wherefore  he  proposed  that  the  commissioners 
at  Cartagena  and  Panamd  should  turn  them  back  and  not  permit 
them  to  enter,  but  the  Suprema  replied  that  their  entrance  was 
not  to  be  impeded  nor  were  they  to  be  prosecuted  unless  they 
committed  offences  coming  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Holy 
Office,  or  were  detected  in  bringing  prohibited  books.  At  the 
same  time  it  ordered  a  careful  inquest  as  to  all  strangers  scattered 
through  the  land  and,  when  this  should  be  verified  with  due  secrecy, 
the  commissioners  were  to  be  instructed  to  admit  to  reconciliation 
those  found  transgressing  and,  if  they  refused  conversion,  they 
were  to  be  prosecuted  with  the  full  severity  of  the  canons.3  If 


1  Archive  de  Lima,  Protocolo  223,  Expte  5270.— Medina,  Lima,  I,  301-18. 

1  Medina,  La  Plata,  p.  57. — Archive  de  Lima,  ubi  sup. 

1  Medina,  Chile,  1,  363,  365.— Archive  nacional  de  Lima,  ubi  sup. 


EXTENT  OF  TERRITORY  333 

the  tribunal  thus  was  prevented  from  regulating  ingress,  it  assumed 
full  control  over  egress,  for  in  June,  1584,  it  issued  a  proclamation 
that  no  one  should  leave  the  kingdom  without  its  licence,  under 
pain  of  excommunication  and  fines,  and  shipmasters  were  ordered 
to  take  no  passengers  without  it — an  assumption  of  power  which 
won  the  approbation  of  the  Suprema,  with  the  suggestive  warning 
that  the  licences  must  be  issued  without  charge.  This  arbitrary 
exercise  of  authority  was  even  extended  to  prohibiting  any  vessel 
from  leaving  port  without  a  licence,  and  the  abuse  became  so 
intolerable  that,  as  we  have  seen  (Mexico,  p.  252),  its  removal 
formed  part  of  the  Concordia  of  1610.  The  tribunal  chafed  under 
this  and,  when  it  was  busy  in  arresting  nearly  all  the  Portuguese 
merchants  in  1636,  it  complained  to  the  Suprema  that  its  hands 
had  been  tied ;  to  prevent  the  escape  of  those  who  might  be  guilty 
it  had  applied  to  the  Viceroy  Chinchon  who,  as  a  governmental 
act,  ordered  that  for  a  year  no  one  should  be  given  passage  without 
a  licence  from  the  Inquisition ;  he  would  willingly  have  done  more, 
but  he  had  to  pay  some  regard  to  the  Concordia.  The  Suprema 
was  impressively  asked  to  see  that  this  matter  should  be  corrected, 
as  otherwise  the  faith  and  the  fisc  would  suffer.  It  was  probably 
on  this  occasion  that  occurred  a  detention  of  the  fleet  when 
ready  to  sail,  to  which  I  have  met  with  an  allusion,  because  licences 
had  not  been  procured  for  the  passengers.1 

The  chief  obstacle  to  the  thorough  organization  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion was  the  immense  extent  of  the  territory  subjected  to  a  single 
tribunal.  Until  the  kingdom  of  New  Granada  was  cut  off,  in  1610, 
by  the  establishment  of  a  tribunal  at  Cartagena,  this  comprised 
the  West  India  Islands  and  the  whole  of  South  America,  save 
the  undefined  limits  of  Portuguese  Brazil.2  The  three  centres 
of  Lima,  Santiago  de  Chile  and  Buenos  Ayres  were  far  apart  in 


1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  172;  II,  58. — Archive  nacional  de  Lima,  Protocolo  228, 
Expte  5287;  Protocolo  223,  Expte  5270. 

a  The  prosecution,  about  1580,  of  Fray  Andres  Velez,  Provincial  of  San  Domingo, 
shows  that  the  islands  were  subject  to  the  Lima  tribunal. — Archivo  de  Lima, 
Protocolo  223,  Expte  5270. 


334  PERU 

distance  and  still  farther  in  the  character  of  the  intervening 
territory,  much  of  as  yet  scarce  explored,  the  Indians  but  partially 
subdued  and  the  Spanish  settlements  few  and  far  between.  Chile, 
indeed,  could  be  reached  by  sea,  in  a  voyage  usually  of  two  or 
three  weeks,  but  the  difficulties  of  communication  with  the 
interior  provinces  and  those  of  the  River  Plate  were  embarrassing. 
When  the  tribunal  consulted  the  Suprema  about  them  it  could 
only  reply  that  cases  arising  in  Paraguay  and  la  Plata  must  be 
dealt  with  as  best  they  could ;  the  accused  at  a  distance  should  be 
ordered  to  present  themselves  to  the  tribunal  and  not  be  arrested 
unless  there  were  manifest  heresy  or  evidence  justifying  seques- 
tration1— a  suggestion  dictated  rather  by  thrift  than  mercy. 

The  device  which  was  effective  in  Spain,  of  commissioners 
in  all  centres  of  population  and  familiars  scattered  everywhere, 
was  only  a  partial  remedy  for  the  difficulty.  The  power  of  the 
commissioner,  as  we  have  seen,  was  jealously  limited;  he  could 
execute  orders,  take  testimony  and  report,  but  he  was  forbidden 
to  arrest  unless  there  was  imminent  danger  that  a  culprit  might 
fly;  in  no  case  could  he  conduct  a  trial;  his  functions  were  purely 
executive  and  in  no  sense  judicial.  A  vast  proportion  of  the  cases 
tried  by  the  Inquisition  were  for  offences  comparatively  trivial — 
blasphemy,  careless  or  irreverent  remarks,  or  the  more  or  less 
harmful  superstitions  classed  as  sorcery — and  the  transmission 
of  denunciations  for  such  matters,  over  hundreds  of  leagues  of 
forest  and  mountain,  and  awaiting  a  reply  with  instructions,  was 
manifestly  too  cumbrous  a  process  to  be  practical;  the  half-breed 
crone,  the  vagrant  soldier  or  the  wandering  pedlar,  who  were 
the  usual  culprits  in  such  cases,  would  be  dead  or  vanished  before 
an  order  of  arrest  could  be  received. 

Peru  was  no  more  exempt  than  Mexico  from  the  troubles  caused 
by  these  outlying  officials  who  felt  themselves  virtually  indepen- 
dent and  became  intolerable  pests  in  their  districts.  The  object 
of  acquiring  the  position  was  to  obtain  exemption  from  justice. 
They  were  answerable  only  to  the  tribunal,  hundreds  of  leagues 

1  Archive  nacional  de  Lima,  Protocol©  223,  Expte  5270. 


COMMISSIONERS  335 

away;  if  laymen,  the  secular  courts,  and  if  ecclesiastics,  the  spirit- 
ual judges,  could  not  touch  them.  They  were  above  all  local  law; 
they  could  indulge  with  impunity  all  evil  passions,  they  could 
tyrannize  at  will  over  their  neighbors,  and  even  in  civil  matters 
they  could  set  justice  at  defiance.  It  was  idle  for  the  Suprema 
to  urge  great  care  in  their  selection  and  strict  investigation  into 
their  conduct  when  visitations  were  made,  with  rigorous  punish- 
ment for  their  excesses.  The  material  to  select  from  was  not 
abundant  and  was  mostly  evil;  visitations  never  took  place  as 
planned,  and  punishment  was  rare.  The  repeated  orders  not  to 
appoint  frailes  except  in  case  of  necessity  and,  when  it  was  obli- 
gatory, to  prefer  Dominicans,  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  reflection 
on  the  regular  Orders,  but  as  arising  from  the  desire  to  maintain 
discipline  in  the  Orders,  because,  when  a  fraile  obtained  a  position 
in  the  Inquisition,  he  threw  off  subjection  to  his  prelate,  and 
the  injunction  not  to  support  them  in  disobedience  was  rarely 
observed.1 

A  memorial  presented,  in  1592,  to  the  inquisitor-general,  in  the 
name  of  the  clergy  of  Peru,  complains  of  the  appointment  as  com- 
missioners of  vicious,  dishonest  and  turbulent  persons,  and  con- 
firms it  by  statements  in  detail  concerning  those  of  Cuzco,  Potosf, 
Popayan,  Camana,  Arequipa,  Guaymanga  and  Payta,  while  the 
familiars  were  no  better.  Successive  inquisitors,  from  Cerezuela 
to  Juan  de  Manozca,  admitted  the  fact  but  justified  themselves 
by  the  argument  that  they  had  to  take  what  they  could  get ;  the 
material  to  select  from  was  too  scarce  to  admit  of  selection,  with 
the  result  that  the  officials  abused  their  power  in  innumerable 
ways.2  The  only  serious  effort  made  to  repress  these  evils  was 
when  Juan  Ruiz  de  Prado  was  sent,  in  1587,  to  Lima  as  visitador, 
clothed  with  full  power  to  correct  the  abuses  which  had  excited 
general  complaint.  He  reported  that  much  of  his  time  was  occu- 
pied in  prosecuting  commissioners  and  their  notaries,  who  had 


1  Archive  nacional  de  Lima,  ubi  sup. — Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Legajo 
1465,  fol.  23. 

2  Medina,  Lima,  I,  204-223;  La  Plata,  62-3,  113. 


336 

committed  the  gravest  excesses;  the  tribunal,  while  cognizant 
of  their  evil  ways,  had  only  taken  action  in  so  far  as  to  deprive 
two  of  them  of  their  commissions,  giving  as  an  excuse  that  if 
it  punished  them  it  could  find  no  others  to  take  their  places. 
Among  those  whom  Prado  disciplined  was  the  priest  Martin 
Barco  de  Centinera,  commissioner  of  Cochachamba,  well  known  as 
the  author  of  La  Argentina.  The  charges  against  him  were  grave 
but  Prado  did  not  wish  to  bring  him  three  hundred  leagues  to 
answer  them,  so  they  were  sent  to  him  with  orders  to  return  them 
with  his  defence.  It  was  proved  that  he  treated  the  people  of 
his  district  like  Jews  and  Moors,  that  he  revenged  himself  on  all 
who  offended  him,  and  that  he  usurped  the  royal  jurisdiction. 
At  public  banquets  he  drank  to  intoxication,  he  talked  openly  of 
his  successful  amours,  he  kept  a  married  woman  as  a  mistress 
and  was  generally  scandalous  in  conversation  and  mode  of  life. 
Prado  fined  him  in  two  hundred  and  fifty  pesos  and  incapacitated 
him  from  holding  office  in  the  Inquisition.1 

A  single  spasmodic  effort  such  as  that  of  Prado  could  effect  no 
permanent  result  and,  if  it  was  difficult  for  the  people,  oppressed 
by  these  petty  local  despots,  to  make  their  wrongs  known,  it 
was  equally  difficult  for  the  Lima  tribunal  to  exercise  its  authority 
over  such  vast  distances.  The  cruelty  and  injustice  to  which 
this  exposed  the  accused  were  also  extreme.  On  a  simple  denun- 
ciation, possibly  for  a  trivial  offence,  and  without  proper  prelimi- 
nary investigation,  he  might  be  sent,  perhaps  in  chains,  from 
Buenos  Ayres  to  Lima,  exhausting  in  expenses  whatever  fortune 
he  possessed.  A  practical  illustration  is  furnished  by  the  case  of 
Francisco  de  Benavente,  denounced  in  1582,  to  the  Commissioner 
of  Tucuman  because,  when  some  one  remarked  that  the  Church 
was  permanent,  he  had  replied  that  it  was  not  well  said.  The 
commissioner  commenced  to  take  testimony  which  so  alarmed 
Benavente  that  he  travelled  six  hundred  leagues  to  present  him- 
self to  the  tribunal  in  Lima,  which  suspended  the  case  and  he 


Medina,  Lima,  I,  261;  La  Plata,  113-15. 


PROPOSED  DIVISION  337 

travelled  home  again.1  To  a  great  extent  this  explains  the 
inordinate  procrastination  in  many  of  the  trials,  while  the  victim 
languished  in  his  cell,  for  the  evidence  might  have  to  be  sent  back 
for  ratification,  or  fresh  testimony  might  be  sought  and  when,  after 
years  had  been  consumed  in  these  preliminaries,  he  put  in  his 
defence,  the  interrogatories  for  his  witnesses  would  be  despatched 
over  the  same  distance  and  their  return  would  be  awaited.  These 
causes  of  delay  were  aggravated  by  the  habitual  negligence  and 
indifference  of  all  the  officials  concerned,  so  that  a  large  portion 
of  a  man's  life  was  often  consumed  in  prison  for  an  offence  which 
ultimately  might  only  merit  a  reprimand,  or  for  which  he  might 
be  acquitted. 

Some  relief  was  afforded  when,  in  1611,  the  tribunal  of  Carta- 
gena was  founded  for  the  northern  coastal  territory  and  the 
islands.  This  was  probably  intended  as  the  commencement  of  a 
systematic  subdivision  of  the  vast  district  for,  a  few  years  later, 
in  anticipation  of  the  erection  of  the  bishopric  of  Buenos  Ayres 
in  1620,  the  Suprema  presented  to  Philip  III  an  elaborate  consulta 
strongly  urging  the  establishment  there  of  a  tribunal.  It  pointed 
out  that  the  arrests  made  in  Lima  showed  the  country  to  be  full 
of  Portuguese  Judaizers,  who  had  every  facility  of  entrance  and 
departure  at  Buenos  Ayres.  From  there  to  Lima  there  were 
seven  hundred  leagues ;  the  roads  were  good,  the  country  populous 
and  the  Portuguese  drove  a  thriving  trade,  enriching  themselves 
and  perverting  the  Indian  converts.  A  commissioner  would  not 
answer,  for  he  had  to  send  seven  hundred  leagues  to  Lima,  with 
as  many  in  return,  before  he  could  act,  while  a  tribunal  could  take 
note  of  every  passenger  landing  or  departing,  and  not  only  defend 
the  faith  but  avert  the  political  dangers  threatened  by  the  corre- 
spondence of  these  foreigners  with  the  enemy.  Besides,  it  was  a 
great  hardship  when  a  man,  for  a  slight  offence  such  as  blasphemy, 
had  to  be  taken  under  guard  for  seven  hundred  leagues,  at  great 
cost,  to  be  sentenced  perhaps  to  abjure  de  levi  and  to  hear  a  mass. 
If  the  projected  cathedral  were  founded  a  prebend  could  be  taken 

1  Medina,  La  Plata,  p.  116. 
22 


338 

to  diminish  the  expense  and  a  single  inquisitor  would  suffice,  as 
in  Majorca.1 

Given  the  necessity  for  the  Inquisition,  the  arguments  were 
unanswerable,  but  they  elicited  no  response  for  the  crown  was 
impoverished  and  shrank  from  having  to  support  another  tribunal. 
About  1620  another  effort  was  made  by  the  procurator  of  the 
Atlantic  provinces,  in  a  memorial  repeating  the  same  arguments 
and  suggesting  that  a  district  be  formed  of  Rio  de  la  Plata,  Para- 
guay and  Tucuman  up  to  the  boundaries  of  los  Charcas,  thus 
extending  some  three  hundred  leagues  and  leaving  four  hundred 
for  the  Lima  tribunal.2  This  was  referred  to  the  Suprema  which 
presented  a  consul ta  urging  favorable  action  February  1,  1621, 
but  the  illness  and  speedy  death  of  Philip  III  intervened  and  on 
March  31, 1623,  it  applied  again  to  Philip  IV,  supporting  its  argu- 
ments with  letters  from  the  tribunal  of  Lima  and  the  commis- 
sioner at  Buenos  Ayres,  but  to  no  effect.  The  next  move  came 
from  the  king,  who,  on  April  12,  1630,  communicated  to  the 
Suprema  a  paper  describing  how  the  Dutch  lost  no  opportunity 
of  introducing  heretical  books  and  perverting  the  natives  of  those 
regions.  He  thought  it  would  be  well  to  found  an  Inquisition 
in  Buenos  Ayres  and,  if  the  expenses  were  too  great,  there  might 
be  an  inquisitor  and  a  fiscal,  while  the  other  offices  could  be  filled 
by  wealthy  men  who  would  gladly  serve  gratuitously.  Or,  if 
this  were  too  costly,  a  Dominican  fraile  could  fill  the  post  of 
inquisitor  as  in  Naples  and  other  parts  of  Italy,  and  he  ordered 
the  Suprema  to  arrange  the  matter  accordingly.  We  shall  see 
that  in  Peru,  as  in  Mexico,  the  tribunal  and  Suprema  evaded  all 
efforts  to  relieve  the  royal  treasury  of  the  burden  and  can  scarce 
wonder  that  Philip,  with  all  his  fanaticism,  was  economically 
disposed,  but  this  did  not  suit  the  ideas  of  the  Suprema.  It 
replied  in  a  consulta  of  April  17th,  insisting  that  an  inquisitor, 
fiscal,  notary,  alcaide  and  portero,  with  salaries  and  expenses 
aggregating  at  least  six  thousand  ducats  a  year,  were  indispensable. 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  45,  fol.  210. 

2  Medina,  La  Plata,  pp.  200-7. 


PROPOSED  DIVISION  339 

The  other  officials,  whose  time  would  not  be  exclusively  occupied, 
might  be  selected  from  among  opulent  persons,  and  that  by  aiding 
to  suppress  the  contraband  trade  of  the  Dutch  the  royal  revenues 
could  be  correspondingly  increased.  The  prospect  of  this  outlay 
refrigerated  Philip's  zeal,  and  he  returned  the  consulta  with  the 
endorsement  that  the  disadvantages  prevented  the  execution  of 
the  project;  the  Lima  tribunal  must  appoint  a  commissioner  of 
special  ability  and  the  governor  would  be  ordered  to  assist 
him.1 

This  rebuff  silenced  the  Suprema  for  the  time  but,  on  September 
19,  1630,  it  returned  to  the  charge.  The  Lima  tribunal,  in  a 
letter  of  June  28,  1629,  had  related  how  a  soldier  in  the  port  of 
Buenos  Ayres,  on  the  look-out  for  a  vessel,  had  picked  up  on  the 
shore  a  sealed  package  addressed  "A  las  justicias  del  Peru"  and 
on  opening  found  it  full  of  attacks  on  the  papal  and  monarchical 
authority.  This  showed,  it  said,  the  audacity  with  which  the 
heretics  were  disseminating  their  doctrines  in  those  regions.  They 
were  also  circulating  tracts  which  had  been  seized,  one  of  which 
was  enclosed  to  prove  to  the  king  the  necessity  of  ordering  effi- 
cacious support  to  the  Inquisition  by  the  royal  officials,  and  how 
desirable  it  would  be  to  establish  a  tribunal  at  Buenos  Ayres.2 
This  appeal  likewise  fell  on  deaf  ears  and,  on  November  26, 1636, 
the  Suprema  forwarded  to  Lima  the  king's  reply  with  correspond- 
ing instructions.3 

The  suggestion  was  renewed,  March  1,  1636,  by  the  fiscal  of 
the  Audiencia  of  la  Plata,  but  this  time  the  proposed  seat  of  the 
tribunal  was  in  Tucuman.  This  led  the  king,  November  2, 1638, 
to  ask  for  information  from  the  audiencia,  the  viceroy  and  other 
authorities.  To  this  the  President  of  Charcas  replied,  warmly 
approving  of  the  project,  but  for  a  wholly  different  reason,  saying 
that  during  his  years  of  service  he  had  observed  the  great  oppres- 
sion of  the  people  by  the  commissioners,  maltreating  them  on 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  20,  fol.  46. 

2  Ibidem,  fol.  66. 

3  Medina,  La  Plata,  pp.  207-8.     I  give  the  date  as  printed  but  think  it  probable 
that  a  typographical  error  has  converted  1630  to  1636. 


340 

trivial  pretexts,  ordering  them  to  appear  at  Lima  with  excessive 
cost  and  irreparable  disgrace  and  molesting  them  in  many  ways, 
for  which  they  dared  not  seek  redress,  for  it  lay  at  such  a  dis- 
tance and  the  remedy  was  to  them  so  horrible.  The  audiencia 
answered,  March  10,  1640,  recommending  Cordoba  de  Tucuman 
as  the  most  desirable  seat.  Two  inquisitors  and  a  fiscal,  with 
salaries  of  two  thousand  pesos  and  a  secretary  with  one  thousand 
would  suffice  and  would  be  largely  defrayed  by  the  fines  and 
confiscations.  Viceroy  Chinchon  delayed  responding  until  Sep- 
tember 29,  1641,  when  he  said  that  it  would  be  advantageous 
but  costly;  the  salaries  would  have  to  be  large,  for  living  was 
dear,  and  the  confiscations  would  be  insufficient;  in  the  last  auto, 
although  the  culprits  were  many  and  of  much  reputed  wealth, 
the  property  had  almost  wholly  disappeared.  Chinchon's  suc- 
cessor, the  Marquis  of  Mancera,  had  already  written,  June  8, 
1641,  that  Chinchon  had  handed  the  matter  over  to  him;  he  had 
referred  it  to  the  President  of  Chuquisaca,  whose  report  he  enclosed, 
and  he  dwelt  upon  the  evil  of  the  Portuguese  who  entered  Para- 
guay by  San  Pablo  and  spread  over  the  land.1 

By  this  time  the  Portuguese  and  Catalan  revolts  gave  Philip 
ample  occupation,  and  the  absolute  exhaustion  of  the  treasury 
forbade  all  thoughts  of  incurring  avoidable  expenses.  When 
these  pressing  necessities  diminished,  the  suggestion  was  renewed 
in  1662 ;  the  erection  of  an  audiencia  in  the  growing  city  of  Buenos 
Ayres  led  the  Lima  tribunal  to  urge  the  establishment  of  an 
Inquisition  there  or  in  Cordoba  de  Tucuman.  Communication 
with  Spain  was  easy  from  there  and  two  inquisitors  would  suffice, 
or  one  and  a  fiscal.  The  Suprema  warmly  advocated  the  measure, 
but  favored  Cordoba,  which  was  only  eight  days'  journey,  or 
even  only  five,  from  Buenos  Ayres.  The  failure  of  this  effort 
seems  to  have  discouraged  further  official  attempts  and  we  hear 
nothing  more  of  the  matter  for  nearly  a  century.  In  1754  the 
Jesuit  Pedro  de  Arroyo  wrote  to  the  procurador  of  his  province 
in  Spain,  calling  attention  to  the  necessities  of  an  additional 

1  Medina,  La  Plata,  pp.  209-14;  Lima,  I,  331. 


PROPOSED  DIVISION  341 

tribunal.  That  of  Lima  was  so  far  off— a  thousand  leagues,  he 
said — that  it  was  of  no  use  to  them.  In  the  twenty  years  spent 
in  those  provinces,  he  had  never  heard  of  an  arrest  by  the  Inqui- 
sition except  one  in  Buenos  Ayres,  and  then  the  prisoner  escaped 
before  reaching  Lima;  there  was,  however,  a  case  of  a  cleric  of 
Paraguay  who  spontaneously  obeyed  a  summons  to  Lima.  A 
commissioner  had  told  him  that,  in  ten  or  eleven  years,  he  had  had 
ten  or  eleven  cases,  which  he  had  investigated  and  reported  to 
Lima,  but  had  never  had  a  reply,  except  in  the  first  case  and  this 
was  not  until  two  years  had  elapsed,  by  which  time  the  culprit 
had  disappeared.  A  second  tribunal  was  now  more  necessary 
than  ever,  as  the  Portuguese  were  inundating  the  land.  In  the 
jurisdiction  of  Buenos  Ayres  they  were  said  to  number  six  thou- 
sand, and  there  was  the  same  proportion  in  other  districts;  in 
that  of  Cordoba,  the  audiencia  banished  them  some  years  ago, 
but  they  merely  moved  their  residence  and  their  places  were 
taken  by  other  Portuguese.  About  the  same  time  Pedro  de 
Logu,  a  calificador  in  Buenos  Ayres,  called  attention  to  the 
mischief  to  religion  arising  from  the  scum  collected  there  and 
subjected  to  no  supervision;  the  powers  of  the  commissioner 
were  limited,  he  had  no  profit  from  his  work  and  the  introduction 
of  prohibited  books  was  frequent.  These  unofficial  representa- 
tions seem  to  have  elicited  no  attention,  but  more  authoritative 
was  the  memorial,  in  1765,  of  Pedro  Miguel,  Archbishop  of  la 
Plata,  whose  residence  there  for  twenty  years  had  shown  to 
him  the  necessity  of  a  tribunal  in  Buenos  Ayres.  To  this  the 
fiscal  of  the  Council  of  Indies  replied,  December  13,  1766,  with  an 
indifference  which  forms  the  measure  of  inquisitorial  decadence. 
The  rarity,  he  says,  of  cases  of  faith,  attributable  to  the  care 
exercised  in  preventing  the  immigration  of  descendants  of  infected 
persons,  rendered  it  unnecessary  to  burden  the  fisc  with  the 
expenses  of  another  tribunal;  besides,  the  difficulty  of  reaching 
Lima  restored  to  the  bishops  their  inherent  jurisdiction  in  such 
matters  and  they  could  sufficiently  protect  the  faith.1  It  may 

1  Medina,  La  Plata,  pp.  215-24;  Lima,  I,  332. 


342  PEEU 

be  hoped,  for  the  good  archbishop's  peace  of  mind,  that  he  did 
not  avail  himself  of  this  unofficial  authorization  to  set  up  an  epis- 
copal Inquisition. 

It  may  be  gathered  from  these  ineffectual  efforts  to  multiply 
tribunals  that  the  financial  question  was  as  important  in  South 
America  as  we  have  seen  it  in  Mexico.  The  experiences  of  the 
two  Inquisitions  were  similar.  When  Cerezuela  and  his  colleague 
went  to  Lima,  they  bore  instructions  to  the  royal  officials  to  dis- 
burse to  the  receiver  of  confiscations  ten  thousand  pesos  a  year 
for  the  salaries  of  the  two  inquisitors,  the  fiscal  and  the  notary.1 
This  made  no  provision  for  other  inevitable  expenses.  The  theory 
on  which  the  Holy  Office  was  based  was  that  it  should  be  self- 
sustaining — supported  by  the  fines  and  confiscations  which  it 
inflicted — and  that  when  these  were  in  excess  the  surplus  should 
enure  to  the  royal  fisc.  In  Lima,  more  clearly  than  in  Mexico, 
Philip  defined  repeatedly  that  this  royal  subvention  should  con- 
tinue only  as  long  as  there  was  deficiency  from  other  sources  of 
income.  In  the  quarrels  which  speedily  arose  between  the 
tribunal  and  the  viceroy,  Toledo  kept  it  in  some  sort  of  subjection 
by  making  the  inquisitors  apply  to  him  personally  for  their  salaries. 
This  was  highly  distasteful,  and  they  seem  to  have  endeavored 
to  escape  from  it  by  excommunicating  the  royal  officials  who 
declined  to  honor  their  demands,  for  cedulas  of  July  17  and  27, 
1572,  addressed  to  the  viceroy  and  inquisitors,  prohibited  them 
from  drawing  on  the  royal  treasury  and  enforcing  payment  with 
censures;  they  were  to  hand  in  their  accounts  which  were  to  be 
promptly  paid,  until  the  fines  and  penances  and  confiscations 
should  suffice.  If  this  meant  that  they  should  render  accounts 
of  these  other  sources  of  income,  it  received  no  attention.  In 
Lima  as  in  Mexico  no  effort  on  the  part  of  the  government  could 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  2.  Vicuna  Mackenna  asserts  (Francisco  Moj^en,  p.  112) 
that  Philip  granted  the  tribunal  a  dotation  which  produced  an  annual  revenue 
of  32,817  pesos,  3}  reales,  but  this  is  a  self-evident  error,  probably  based  on  the 
king's  assertion  to  Urban  VIII  that  he  spent  32,000  ducats  a  year  on  the  three 
tribunals  of  Mexico,  Lima  and  Cartagena, 


FINANCES  343 

obtain  an  insight  into  the  finances  of  the  tribunal  and  the  royal 
subvention  was  indefinitely  prolonged.1 

Still  this  did  not  provide  for  the  salaries  of  the  minor  officials 
and  the  other  unavoidable  expenses.  For  awhile  doubtless  the 
tribunal  felt  the  pinch  of  poverty.  We  find  the  Suprema  sug- 
gesting that,  if  the  prisons  are  insufficient,  they  can  be  made 
good  out  of  the  fines  and  penances ;  the  alguacil  is  to  be  dismissed 
and,  if  another  is  appointed,  he  must  serve  without  salary;  possibly 
the  viceroy  may  be  induced  to  grant  pensions  on  some  of  the 
vacant  repartimientos  of  Indians.  The  tribunal  astutely  raised 
the  question  of  the  ayuda  de  costa,  or  supplementary  payment 
to  meet  the  expenses  of  the  visitations,  which  it  had  no  intention 
of  making,  and  it  was  told  to  consult  the  viceroy  and  report,  after 
which  the  Suprema  would  consult  the  king.  In  this  it  doubtless 
failed,  but  we  chance  to  hear  of  an  ayuda  de  costa  paid  as  a 
reward  for  the  auto  de  fe  of  1578.  Philip  was  by  no  means  dis- 
posed to  be  liberal.  In  1593  a  question  arose  as  to  the  salary  of 
a  fiscal  ad  interim  and  he  rather  grudgingly,  by  a  cedula  of  Feb- 
ruary 7,  1594,  ordered  that  one-half  might  be  paid,  until  the  con- 
fiscations should  suffice.2 

Meanwhile  the  activity  of  the  tribunal  was  rapidly  enabling  it 
to  emerge  from  its  penury.  Its  correspondence  with  the  Suprema 
between  1570  and  1594  shows  that  confiscations  were  continually 
decreed  and  were  apparently  profitable.  Frequent  references 
occur  to  the  estate  of  a  Dr.  Quinones,  who  owned  a  mine  which 
was  to  be  rented  until  sentence  was  pronounced  and  then  was  to 
be  sold;  he  also  had  a  library  which  seems  to  have  been  of  value 
and  was  to  be  disposed  of  either  in  bulk  or  at  retail.  Up  to  1583 
the  total  receipts  from  confiscations  amounted  to  thirty-eight 
thousand  pesos,  or  an  average  of  nearly  three  thousand  per 
annum.3  Fines  were  also  lucrative.  Between  1571  and  1573 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  40,  fol.  20,  21,  54,  91. — Medina, 
Lima,  I,  187. — Archive  nacional  de  Lima,  ubi  sup. 

2  Archive  nacional  de  Lima,  ubi  sup. — Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libre 
40,  fol.  30. 

1  Archivp  nacional  de  Lima,  ubi  sup. — Medina,  Lima,  I,  202. 


344  PERU 

there  were  twenty-seven  cases  sentenced  in  the  audience-chamber, 
yielding  in  all  twenty-six  hundred  pesos  of  which  a  thousand 
were  levied  on  Rodrigo  de  Areas,  parish  priest  of  Ribera,  for 
solicitation  in  the  confessional.  Between  1581  and  1585  fifty- 
seven  cases,  similarly  sentenced  in  private,  furnished  eighty- 
three  hundred  pesos.  In  1583  there  came  a  piece  of  good  fortune 
in  a  legacy  of  Pedro  de  la  Pena,  Bishop  of  Quito,  who  left  to  the 
tribunal  twenty  thousand  pesos  to  build  a  chapel  for  his  in- 
terment. The  house  and  prison  thus  far  occupied  were  unfit- 
ted for  the  growing  activity  of  the  tribunal;  with  the  legacy  and 
the  proceeds  of  sale  of  the  existing  building,  a  much  finer  struc- 
ture was  erected,  including  a  prison  with  twelve  cells.  With 
increasing  business  came  increasing  income  and,  while  the  pretext 
of  poverty  continued  to  be  put  forward  to  the  king,  the  tribunal 
soon  began  to  accumulate  capital  and  place  it  at  interest.  In 
1596,  Inquisitor  Ordonez,  while  blaming  the  receiver  Juan  de 
Saracho,  admitted  that  he  had  succeeded  in  amassing  twenty 
thousand  pesos,  part  of  which  sum  was  invested  in  censos  or 
ground-rents.  To  this  Ordonez,  by  a  happy  stroke,  added  seven 
thousand  more  from  the  estate  of  Pedro  Gonzalez  de  Montalban, 
whose  property  had  been  sequestrated.  He  was  very  sick  and 
obtained  his  liberation  by  making  a  will  in  favor  of  the  tribunal.1 
The  Portuguese  Judaizers  now  began  to  occupy  a  constantly 
increasing  share  of  the  tribunal's  attention,  opening  up  a  most 
prosperous  field  of  operations.  The  time  had  come  when  the 
temporary  subvention  should  be  withdrawn,  but  the  tribunal 
continued  quietly  to  demand  and  receive  it. 

It  was  impossible  to  keep  wholly  secret  the  absorption  of  large 
estates  and  the  investments  of  accumulating  capital.  The  atten- 
tion of  Philip  III  was  called  to  the  matter  and,  in  a  letter  of  June 
4,  1614,  to  the  viceroy,  he  recited  the  conditions  on  which  the 
grant  had  been  made;  he  had  learned  that  the  salaries  continued 
to  be  paid  by  the  treasury,  in  spite  of  the  receipt  from  these 
sources  of  amounts  sufficient  to  defray  them  in  whole  or  in  part, 

i  Medina,  Lima,  I,  47-9,  188-95,  200,  304, 


FINANCES  345 

and  he  therefore  ordered  that,  when  the  salaries  were  paid,  the 
viceroy  should  inform  himself  of  the  receipts  from  other  sources 
and  deduct  them  from  the  charge  on  the  treasury,  making  full 
reports  to  the  king.  This  was  evaded  by  the  receiver  giving  a 
certificate  such  as  he  saw  fit,  of  what  moneys  he  had  on  hand, 
which  naturally  was  found  to  be  a  worthless  safe-guard,  and  the 
viceroy  was  ordered  to  require  from  the  receiver  a  statement 
of  all  receipts  every  year.  It  was  found  impossible  to  procure 
this  and  Philip,  in  a  letter  to  the  Viceroy  Squillace,  April  26,  1618, 
after  recalling  all  the  previous  attempts,  ordered  him  to  appoint 
from  the  treasury  two  experienced  accountants  to  audit  the 
receiver's  accounts  and  report  the  result  to  the  king.  The 
accountants  were  duly  appointed,  but  the  receiver  refused  abso- 
lutely to  exhibit  his  accounts — he  had  sent  them  to  the  inquisitor- 
general  as  he  was  required  to  do  by  his  instructions.  This 
exhausted  the  royal  patience  and  one  of  the  first  acts  of  Philip 
IV  was  a  letter  to  the  viceroy,  June  11,  1621,  ordering  the  sus- 
pension of  payments  until  the  inquisitors  should  furnish  authentic 
evidence  that  the  confiscations  had  not  sufficed  to  meet  them. 
This  went  on  for  two  years,  the  inquisitors  preferring  to  forego 
the  subvention  rather  than  to  expose  the  flourishing  condition 
of  their  finances.  They  brought  incessant  pressure  to  bear, 
however,  and  finally  induced  Viceroy  Guadalsacar,  under  a 
resolution  of  the  treasury  officials,  to  resume  payments  on  the 
presentation  of  certain  certificates  of  the  contador,  the  scrivener 
of  sequestrations  and  the  receiver.  On  learning  this  the  Council 
of  Indies  made  a  thorough  investigation  of  the  whole  matter 
and  reported  that,  in  view  of  the  exhaustion  of  the  royal  treasury, 
and  that  since  the  foundation  of  the  tribunal,  up  to  1625,  it  had 
consumed  six  hundred  and  sixty-two  thousand  ducats  without 
having  returned  anything  from  the  fines  and  confiscations,  it 
was  wholly  wrong  that  the  money  should  have  been  used  by  the 
officials  in  buying  lands  and  censos  which  they  were  now  enjoy- 
ing. To  put  an  end  to  this  the  king,  April  20,  1629,  issued  a 
c&lula  ordering  that  the  conditions  expressed  in  1@21  should  be 


346  PERU 

inviolably  observed,  no  matter  what  might  be  the  exigency,  under 
pain  not  only  of  the  royal  displeasure  but  that  all  such  disburse- 
ments should  be  charged  to  the  viceroy  and  be  deducted  from 
his  salary.  To  insure  observance  this  ce*dula  was  to  be  entered 
on  the  books  of  the  treasury  and  all  auditors  were  to  be  governed 
by  it.1 

These  were  brave  words  but  it  is  probable  that  the  Inquisition 
found  means  to  render  them  nugatory,  while  an  apparent 
compromise  was  sought  at  the  expense  of  a  third  party — the 
Church.  We  have  seen  (Mexico,  p.  216)  how  a  prebend  in 
each  cathedral  was  suppressed  at  the  first  vacancy  and  the  fruits 
were  paid  to  the  tribunal.  The  process  was  necessarily  slow, 
commencing  with  the  brief  of  Urban  VIII,  March  10,  1627,  and 
delayed  by  waiting  for  the  successive  vacancies  and  also  by 
resistance,  in  some  cases,  of  the  cathedral  chapters.2  It  was 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  40,  fol.  34,  35,  36,  54. — Recop.  Lib. 
i,  Tit.  xix,  11.  10,  11, 12. — Solorzani  de  Indiar.  Gubernat.,  Lib.  in,  cap.  xxiv,  n.  11. 

2  In  the  chapter  of  Santiago  de  Chile,  one  of  the  canons,  Francisco  Navarro, 
soon  after  the  arrival  of  the  royal  order  suppressing  a  prebend,  withdrew  to  the 
convent  of  San  Francisco.     It  was  claimed  that  his  retirement  vacated  the  bene- 
fice; the  matter  was  referred  to  the  king  who  decided,  by  a  decree  of  August  31, 
1635,  that  this  was  the  case.     The  canons  adopted  the  favorite  device  of  obeying 
without  executing  and  were  supported  by  the  Audiencia,  much  to  the  disgust 
of  the  Dean,  Tomas  de  Santiago,  who  was  commissioner  of  the  Inquisition. 
Meanwhile  another  of  the  canons,  Ger6nimo  Salvatierra,  died  and  the  question 
was  finally  settled  by  a  royal  order  of  April  6,  1638,  pronouncing  the  vacated 
prebend  to  be  that  of  Salvatierra. 

Commissioner  Santiago  had  become  violently  inimical  to  some  of  the  canons 
in  the  course  of  this  dispute  and  undertook  to  gratify  his  revenge,  when  Manuel 
Bautista  P6rez  of  Lima  was  burnt  and  his  property  was  confiscated.  One  of  his 
debtors  to  the  amount  of  2000  pesos  was  a  prominent  merchant  of  Santiago, 
Pedro  Martinez  Gago,  whose  property  was  seized  by  Santiago;  some  of 
the  canons  were  indebted  to  him  for  trifling  amounts  and  Santiago  persecuted 
them.  The  quarrel  assumed  portentous  dimensions  through  the  violence  of  his 
proceedings  and  liberal  use  of  excommunication,  when  a  new  bishop  Fray  Gaspar 
de  Villaroel,  made  his  appearance,  and  undertook  to  reduce  Santiago  to  submis- 
sion. In  this  he  disregarded  all  the  immunities  of  the  Inquisition  and,  being  sup- 
ported by  the  civil  power  and  the  judiciary,  he  vindicated  his  episcopal  suprem- 
acy by  arresting  the  contumacious  commissioner  and  imprisoning  him  in  chains. 
Santiago  boldly  strove  to  make  head  against  the  united  secular  and  ecclesiastical 
power  of  the  province,  but  was  finally  forced  to  submit,  Villaroel  does  not  seem 


FINANCES  347 

virtually  completed  in  1635,  when  Philip  wrote  to  the  treasury 
officials,  September  26th,  that  the  senior  Inquisitor,  Juan  de 
Manozca,  had  advised  him  that  the  suppression  of  the  prebends 
for  the  payment  of  salaries  had  been  effected.  The  orders  with 
regard  to  this  are  to  be  executed  and,  as  he  supposes  that  the 
arrearages  of  salaries  have  been  paid,  he  writes  to  Manozca  that 
in  future  the  prebends  are  to  be  applied  to  the  salaries  as  the 
treasury  is  in  urgent  need  of  relief — which  shows  that  up  to  that 
time  the  king  had  continued  to  pay  them  and  even  to  make  good 
the  arrearages,  in  spite  of  the  decisive  provisions  of  1629.1  The 
prebends  thus  obtained  were  eight  in  number,  in  the  cathedrals 
of  Lima,  Quito,  Trugillo,  Arequipa,  Cuzco,  Paz,  Chuquisaca 
and  Santiago  de  Chile.  They  produced,  as  we  have  seen,  eleven 
thousand  pesos  a  year,  thus  more  than  replacing  the  subvention. 
Further  documents  fail  us  here  but,  from  the  experience  of  Mexico 
and  Cartagena,  it  is  fairly  to  be  assumed  that,  in  spite  of  the  pre- 
bends and  of  the  large  confiscations  now  coming  in,  the  tribunal 
managed  to  continue  drawing  the  subvention  and,  in  1677,  there 
was  still  discussion  of  the  subject.2 

The  time,  in  fact,  had  come  when  the  finances  of  the  tribunal 
were  to  be  placed  on  an  enduring  foundation.  We  shall  see  here- 
after the  details  of  the  complicidad  grande,  when  nearly  all  the 
leading  merchants  in  Lima,  of  Portuguese  extraction,  were 
arrested  on  charges  of  Judaism  and  their  property  was  seques- 
trated. Arrests  had  commenced  in  1634  and  the  tragedy  cul- 
minated in  the  great  auto  of  January  23,  1639.  What  was  the 
amount  acquired  by  the  tribunal  can  never  be  known,  but  popular 
report  estimated  it  as  a  million  of  pesos,  and  we  have  seen  that 
Viceroy  Chinchon  reported  that  it  virtually  disappeared  without 
any  one  knowing  where  it  went.  Philip  IV,  whose  necessities 


to  have  suffered  for  his  audacity.  In  1651  he  was  transferred  to  the  see  of  Are- 
quipa and  in  1658  he  became  Archbishop  of  la  Plata.  When  he  died  there,  in 
1665,  his  whole  fortune  was  found  to  consist  of  six  reales. — Mackenna,  La  Revista 
de  Buenos  Aires,  Mayo,  1870,  p.  102. 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  40,  fol.  46. 

2  Ibidem,  fol.  54. 


348 

were  daily  becoming  greater,  was  led  by  the  report  of  the  enor- 
mous sequestrations  to  seek  an  explanation  of  the  Suprema, 
which  replied  to  him,  December  19, 1636,  that  the  sequestrations 
had  been  large  but  they  shrank  to  almost  nothing  from  the  claims 
of  creditors,  some  of  which  came  from  Spain.1  Disappointed 
in  this  he  wrote,  March  30,  1637,  congratulating  the  inquisitors 
on  their  zeal  and  suggesting  that  it  appeared  to  him  just  that  out 
of  them  the  fisc  should  be  reimbursed  for  its  outlays  on  their 
salaries,  and  that  enough  should  be  set  aside  to  provide  for  the 
future  in  case  the  prebends  did  not  suffice.  The  inquisitors 
replied,  with  outward  demonstrations  of  respect,  that  they  would 
report  to  the  Suprema  to  which  the  funds  belonged;  that  as 
yet  there  had  only  been  sequestrations,  while  innumerable  claims 
on  the  property  had  been  presented,  and  that  many  prisoners 
had  been  found  innocent  and  their  estates  had  been  restored  to 
them — to  five  of  these,  Pedro  de  Soria,  Andres  Mufloz,  Francisco 
Sotelo,  Antonio  de  los  Santos  and  Jorje  Danila  there  had  thus 
been  returned  a  hundred  and  seventy-four  thousand  pesos. 
Philip  made  an  attempt  to  investigate  the  matter  by  appointing, 
in  1643,  with  the  assent  of  the  Suprema,  Dr.  Martin  Real  as  visi- 
tador  to  examine  into  the  finances  of  the  tribunals  of  Lima  and 
Cartagena,  but,  as  we  shall  see,  he  was  baffled  in  Cartagena  and, 
after  stormy  experiences,  returned  to  Spain  without  reaching 
Lima.2  Repulsed  thus  at  every  point,  Philip  resorted  to  somewhat 
arbitrary  measures.  In  1644  we  find  the  Suprema  complaining 
of  the  seizure  at  Seville  of  two  or  three  large  sequestrations  sent 
there  from  Lima  for  settlement  with  creditors,  and  again  of  twenty 
thousand  ducats'  worth  of  wool  taken  by  him,  of  which  Alfonso 
Cardosso  &  Co.  were  demanding  the  surrender  as  owners.3 

What  share  of  the  spoils  the  Suprema  obtained  it  would  be 
impossible  to  say.  We  happen  to  hear,  in  1640,  of  twelve  thou- 
sand pesos  brought  to  it  from  Lima  by  Juan  de  Arostegui,  which 
is  doubtless  only  a  portion  of  the  amount  doled  out  to  it  by  the 


1  Archive  de  Simancas  Inq.,  Libro  21,  fol.  72.         J  Medina,  Lima,  II,  165-66. 
*  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  36,  fol.  74. 


FINANCES  349 

tribunal.1  The  latter,  in  fact,  in  its  reports  habitually  belittled 
the  results  obtained  or  anticipated;  it  treated  the  Suprema  as 
the  Suprema  treated  the  king.  In  reporting  the  arrests,  in  1636, 
it  was  careful  to  point  out  that,  although  the  prisoners  were 
reputed  to  be  wealthy  and  lived  with  ostentation,  it  was  a  decep- 
tion, for  in  reality  they  were  trading  on  borrowed  money  and 
had  little  of  their  own.  This  was  a  repetition  of  what  it  had 
said  in  1631,  when  persecution  of  the  Portuguese  had  already 
been  going  on  for  pome  years — the  sequestrations  made  much 
show  but  with  slender  results;  the  real  estate  of  the  accused  was 
held  in  order  to  gain  the  reputation  of  wealth,  while  in  reality  it 
was  so  encumbered  as  to  be  valueless,  and  the  personal  property 
was  so  concealed  as  to  be  undiscoverable.2 

There  were  other  productive  sources  of  income  besides  the 
confiscations.  One  of  these  which  was  especially  profitable  was 
the  "quebrantamientos  de  escrituras  de  juego."  Gambling  was 
almost  universal  and  disgusted  gamesters  would  frequently  swear 
off  under  a  penalty,  attested  by  a  notarial  act;  the  pledge  would 
inevitably  be  broken  and  the  forfeit  was  usually  contributed  to 
the  pious  uses  of  the  Inquisition.  A  statement  of  the  deposits 
in  the  area  de  tres  Haves,  or  money-chest  of  the  tribunal,  from 
May  4,  1630,  to  August  31,  1634,  shows  1449  pesos  from  fines, 
4909  from  donations  and  35,829  from  the  quebrantamientos,  or 
in  all  42,187,  representing  an  annual  income  of  nearly  nine  thou- 
sand pesos  from  these  sources  alone.3  When  to  this  we  add  the 
confiscations,  the  prebends  and  the  constantly  increasing  returns 
from  accumulating  investments,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  tribunal 
was  rapidly  growing  in  wealth  and  how  factitious  were  the  pleas 
on  which  it  maintained  its  grip  on  the  royal  subvention. 

When,  in  1631,  the  office  of  alguazil  was  made  saleable  consider- 
able sums  were  collected  from  this  source.  In  1641  the  position 
of  alguazil  mayor  of  Santiago  de  Chile — a  purely  ornamental 
office,  unsalaried  but  with  contingent  privileges — was  bid  up  to 

1  Archive  de  Simancas  Inquisicion,  Libro  21,  fol.  261. 

3  Medina,  Lima,  II,  48,  167.  s  Ibidem,  166. 


350  PERU 

6500  pesos.1  As  these  commissions,  however,  were  issued  by  the 
inquisitor-general  it  is  probable  that  they  were  duly  accounted  for. 
Indeed,  we  have  seen  (p.  224)  that  the  Suprema  endeavored  in 
this  way  to  explain  the  remittances  which  it  could  not  conceal. 

Increasing  wealth  naturally  led  to  multiplication  of  offices  and 
generally  careless  expenditure.  In  1674  the  receiver  or  treasurer 
lamented  that  he  had  striven  in  vain  to  reduce  the  affairs  of  the 
tribunal  to  order.  The  revenues  had  fallen  to  35,951  pesos  and 
the  expenses  exceeded  them.  Still,  he  held  that,  in  spite  of  the 
considerable  remittances  to  the  Suprema  and  the  overgrown  pay- 
roll, the  income  could  be  made  to  suffice  if  it  were  not  for  the 
expenditures  of  the  inquisitors  on  their  houses  and  their  frequent 
elevation  to  bishoprics,  after  which  they  persisted  in  drawing 
their  salaries.2 


1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  167. 

2  Ibidem,  251. 

A  statement  of  expenses  for  1681  shows: 

Salaries  of  fourteen  officials pesos   23,528.0 

Yearly  remittance  to  the  Suprema 9,926.3 

"  "        to  its  Secretary 496.2 

"  "        to  two  other  secretaries  and  two  clerks 

at  275 1,100.0 

11,522.5 

Maintenance  of  poor  prisoners 850.0 

Extraordinary  expenses 2,800.0 

Expenses  of  the  camara  del  secreto 250.0 

38,950.5 

Spent  in  seven  years  on  the  houses  of  inquisitors 7,000.0 

In  giving  this  Medina  (pp.  252-3)  calls  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  this  enu- 
meration are  not  included  the  salaries  of  a  number  of  other  officials  mentioned 
by  the  receiver,  as  follows : 

A  third  secretary 1000 

Notario  del  juzgado 1400 

Contador 200 

Juez  de  los  bienes  confiscados 1000 

Advocate  of  prisoners 200 

Steward 300 

Solicitador ; 100 

Barber 100 

4300 

There  is  significance  in  the  annual  payments  to  the  secretaries  of  the  Suprema 
whose  good  will  might  at  any  moment  be  useful. 


FINANCES  351 

The  investments  of  the  tribunal  were  principally  in  censos — 
rent-charges  on  real  estate.  When  these  fell  into  arrears  the 
property  was  put  up  and  sold  at  auction,  apparently  still  subject 
to  the  rent,  the  arrearages  being  collected  from  the  purchase- 
money,  and  the  numerous  references  to  these  transactions  show 
that  they  were  by  no  means  infrequent.  Still,  the  Inquisition 
assumed  that  it  was  an  indulgent  creditor.  When,  about  1705, 
several  successive  bad  harvests  had  rendered  the  farmers  unable 
to  pay  their  rents,  they  petitioned  the  viceroy  for  a  reduction 
of  the  principal.  In  transmitting  this  request  to  the  king,  the 
viceroy  asked  the  opinion  of  the  various  tribunals,  to  which  the 
Inquisition  replied  that  the  principal  should  remain  intact  as 
the  deficient  harvests  were  temporary  and  the  land  retained  its 
value:  that  it  was  different  in  Chile,  where  the  censos  on  urban 
property  were  reduced  in  principal  after  the  earthquake  which 
ruined  the  buildings.  The  tribunal  therefore  recommended  a 
postponement  of  arrears  and  reduction  of  interest  until  the  bad 
season  should  pass;  this  was  what  it  had  done  with  its  debtors; 
it  had  not  thrown  them  in  prison  or  put  up  the  farms  at  auction, 
even  though  the  arrears  were  large,  proceeding  with  benignity 
and  equity  and  treating  each  case  on  its  merits.1 

Under  a  succession  of  venal  and  unprincipled  inquisitors,  the 
finances  of  the  tribunal  became  involved  in  confusion  and  the 
magnitude  of  the  amounts  at  stake  shows  how  successful  it  had 
been  in  accumulation.  In  1733  the  two  inquisitors  were  Caspar 
Ibariez  de  Peralta  and  Christobal  Sanchez  Calderon.  The  former 
was  old  and  failing  and  the  latter  was  engaged,  under  the  name 
of  his  chaplain,  in  mercantile  operations  with  the  funds  of  the 
tribunal  with  such  success  that,  in  1739,  he  remitted  eighty 
thousand  pesos  to  Spain  and  had  purchased  a  valuable  property 
near  Lima.  He  also  spent  five  thousand  in  decorating  his  house, 
and  when  the  security  of  the  temporary  receiver  Juan  Este*ban 
Pefia  expired  he  opposed  its  renewal,  resulting  in  heavy  loss  when 
Pena  became  bankrupt.  The  new  receiver,  Manuel  de  Ilarduy 

1  MSS.  of  White  Library,  Cornell  University,  n.  616,  fol.  65. 


352  PERU 

speedily  fell  into  default  for  more  than  two  hundred  and  thirty 
thousand  pesos  and  there  were  other  deficiencies.  In  1735 
Diego  de  Unda  was  sent  from  Spain  as  fiscal  with  special  orders 
to  investigate  the  finances.  In  1736  he  reported  that  he  found 
everything  right  except  that  when  Calderon  insisted  that  Ilarduy 
should  render  his  accounts  and  deposit  all  funds  in  the  chest  and 
on  the  receiver's  refusal,  had  embargoed  his  property,  Ibanez 
verbally  suspended  the  embargo,  so  that  when,  on  the  next  day, 
the  embargo  was  renewed,  it  was  found  that  large  amounts  of 
silver  and  merchandise  had  been  removed  and  there  only  remained 
a  little  silver  dish  and  some  vessels  in  his  oratory.  Still  Ilarduy 
was  forced  to  pay  fifty  thousand  pesos  and  furnish  securities 
amounting  to  a  hundred  and  ten  thousand  more. 

It  seemed  impossible  to  secure  honest  officials.  Unda  had 
brought  with  him  as  secretary  of  the  tribunal  Ignacio  de  Irazdbal, 
who  was  made  auditor.  He  was  detected  in  passing  false  accounts 
for  Ilarduy  and  was  dismissed,  as  likewise  was  another  secretary, 
Geronimo  de  la  Torre.  The  struggle  between  Calderon  and  Ilar- 
duy became  mortal,  and  the  amounts  at  stake  must  have  been 
large  for  the  latter  sent  emissaries  to  Spain  with  a  hundred  thou- 
sand pesos  with  which  to  bribe  the  Suprema  to  dismiss  the  inquisi- 
tor. He  succeeded  in  having  a  visitador  sent  with  full  powers 
to  investigate  and  punish,  with  results  that  we  shall  see  hereafter. 
It  is  only  necessary  here  to  say  that  Calderon's  and  Unda's 
property  was  sequestrated,  to  be  released  in  1747  by  orders  of 
the  Suprema.  A  new  factor  had  appeared  on  the  scene  when, 
in  1737,  Mateo  de  Amusqulbar  came  as  fiscal,  to  be  not 
long  afterwards  promoted  to  the  inquisitorship.  He  formed  an 
alliance  with  Ilarduy;  they  were  both  Biscayans  and  the  Bis- 
cayan  faction  became  supreme.  Unda  died,  May  27,  1748,  and 
Calderon  was  living  in  retirement  on  his  plantation.  The  vacancy 
was  filled,  in  1751  by  Diego  Rodriguez  Delgado  who  came  with 
special  orders  to  investigate  the  finances.  He  promptly  reported 
that  it  was  impossible  to  examine  the  accounts  of  the  receiver, 
which  were  in  a  state  too  confused  to  admit  of  verification.  He 


FINANCES  353 

had  learned  that  the  cost  of  maintaining  the  prisoners  did  not 
amount  to  more  than  a  thousand  pesos  per  annum,  while  it  was 
charged  at  four  thousand.  There  were  seventy  thousand  due  on 
the  rents  of  farms  and  fruits  of  prebends  and,  by  the  reduction 
of  exorbitant  salaries  this  amount  when  collected  could  readily 
be  increased  to  a  hundred  thousand,  more  than  enough  to  rebuild 
the  inquisition  and  its  chapel,  which  had  lain  in  ruins  since  the 
earthquake  of  1746.  Under  the  preceding  receiver,  the  confis- 
cation of  Pedro  Uban,  condemned  in  1736,  had  amounted  to 
more  than  sixty  thousand  pesos,  but  no  trace  could  be  found  of 
the  existence  or  the  expenditure  of  this  sum.  No  reform  however 
was  possible  in  view  of  the  alliance  between  Amusquibar  and 
Ilarduy.  No  reform,  in  fact,  followed,  although  after  all  the 
actors  had  passed  away,  Calderon's  property  was  seized  to  make 
good  the  deficit  of  Antonio  Morante,  an  administrador  whom 
he  had  appointed  and  kept  in  office  without  requiring  security  and, 
in  1773,  a  suit  was  in  progress  with  the  executor  of  his  estate  for 
over  thirty  thousand  pesos,  the  outcome  of  which  the  records 
fail  to  inform  us.  Altogether,  through  these  quarrels  we  obtain 
an  inside  view  of  venality  and  corruption  which  probably  were 
not  confined  to  this  period.  In  1751  we  learn  that  Amusquibar, 
on  entering  office  in  1744,  had  remitted  nineteen  thousand  pesos 
to  the  Suprema,  since  when  nothing  had  been  sent.  The  income 
had  fallen  to  thirty  thousand  and  there  was  little  more  than 
forty  thousand  in  the  chest.1 

The  inevitable  results  of  dishonesty  and  disorder  were  height- 
ened by  external  causes  and,  in  1777,  we  find  the  resources  of  the 
tribunal  materially  reduced.  After  the  earthquake  of  1746  the 
rate  of  interest  on  the  censos  had  been  lowered  from  five  per 
cent,  to  three.  There  were  few  profitable  confiscations  to  make 


1  Medina,  Chile,  II,  396;  Lima,  II,  315-19,  326,  331,  352-3. — Archive  nacional 
de  Lima,  Protocolo  225,  Expte  5278. — Memorias  de  los  Vireyes,  IV,  490. 

A  salutary  regulation  required  each  viceroy,  at  the  expiration  of  his  term,  to 
draw  up  an  account  of  his  experience  and  of  the  condition  of  affairs  for  the  benefit 
of  his  successor.     These,  so  far  as  recovered,  were  printed  at  Lima  in  1859,  under 
the  title  of  Memorias  de  los  Vireyes. 
23 


354  PERU 

good  the  deficit,  the  fruits  of  the  prebends  were  falling  off  and 
their  collection  was  becoming  difficult.  In  1777  that  of  Quito 
owed  about  ten  thousand  pesos,  that  of  Trujillo  eleven  thousand, 
that  of  Arequipa,  owing  to  the  decline  in  prices  was  greatly 
diminished  in  value.  Salaries  were  in  arrears  to  the  extent  of 
twenty  thousand  pesos  and  the  efforts  of  the  receiver  to  make 
collections  were  fruitless.  The  houses  of  the  inquisitors  were 
unfinished  and  Inquisitor  Lopez  Grillo  was  obliged  to  rent  one, 
at  the  distance  of  a  block  from  the  tribunal.  In  1784  the  earth- 
quake in  Cuzco  caused  a  further  decline  in  the  canonries  of  la 
Paz,  Arequipa  and  Cuzco;  an  urgent  request  was  made  for  the 
suppression  of  the  office  of  the  third  inquisitor,  and  authority 
was  asked  to  sell  property  in  order  to  pay  salaries.1  All  this 
betokens  real  distress  and  yet,  although  the  administration  of 
affairs  can  scarce  be  thought  to  have  improved  in  the  following 
years,  when,  in  1813,  the  decree  of  suppression  was  received  in 
Lima  and  the  property  of  the  tribunal  was  inventoried  for  the 
benefit  of  the  royal  treasury,  there  were  found  in  its  chests  ready 
money  to  the  amount  of  68,834  pesos,  3£  reales,  besides  2400 
pesos  of  jewels  confiscated  on  Inquisitor  Unda  and  2500,  the 
valuation  of  the  furniture  of  the  chapel.  From  the  statement  of 
the  auditor  it  appeared  that  the  capital  of  the  censos  and  value 
of  the  plantations  belonging  to  the  tribunal  amounted  to  1,508,518 
pesos.  A  portion  of  this,  however,  was  not  its  property  but  was 
held  in  trust  for  special  purposes.  Of  the  money  on  hand,  47,433 
pesos  were  funds  of  the  tribunal,  while  13,325  pesos,  2  reales 
appertained  to  the  Colegio  de  Santa  Cruz,  founded  by  Mateo 
Pastor  de  Velasco  and  Bernardino  Olave  for  female  foundlings, 
and  placed  under  the  charge  of  the  Inquisition,  also  8076  pesos, 
1}  reales  was  the  balance  on  hand  of  a  foundation  known  as  of 
Zelayeta  and  Nunez  de  Santiago.  The  capital  of  the  Colegio  de 
Santa  Cruz  amounted  to  394,502  pesos,  6£  reales;  that  of  the 
other  foundation  is  not  stated  but,  assuming  them  together  to  be 


Medina,  Lima,  II,  382-3. 


ABUSES  355 

500,000  pesos,  it  would  leave  about  a  million  for  the  accumula- 
tions of  the  tribunal.1 

The  men  who  were  at  the  head  of  the  tribunal,  whatever  may 
have  been  their  reputation  at  home,  were  not,  as  a  rule,  able  to 
resist  the  demoralizing  influences  around  them,  intensified  by 
the  irresponsible  autocratic  power  conferred  by  their  position. 
The  only  effective  control  possible  to  the  Suprema  lay  in  the 
appointment  of  a  visitador  or  inspector,  clothed  with  superior 
authority,  and  this  was  an  expedient  rarely  resorted  to,  especially 
as  the  inspector  was  exposed  to  the  same  temptations  and  was  apt 
to  yield  to  them.  The  Suprema  was  not  kept  in  ignorance  of  the 
derelictions  of  its  appointees,  for  the  inquisitors  rarely  worked 
in  harmony.  Deadly  quarrels  arose  between  them  and  they 
abused  each  other  without  stint  in  their  communications  to  head- 
quarters, while  their  subordinates  were  equally  free  in  exposing 
the  malfeasance  of  their  superiors.  The  publication  of  much 
of  this  secret  correspondence  and  of  complaints  of  aggrieved 
parties  by  Senor  Medina  thus  gives  us  an  exceptional  opportunity 
to  gain  an  insight  into  the  interior  life  of  a  tribunal  and  into 
its  use  of  the  enormous  power  which  it  enjoyed. 

We  have  seen  that  the  second  inquisitor,  Bustamente,  died  at 
Panam&,  and  that  Cerezuela  was  alone  in  opening  the  tribunal. 
The  fiscal,  Alcedo,  and  the  notary,  Arrieta,  were  quarrelling 
mortally  with  each  other,  and  both  were  writing  to  the  Suprema, 
criticizing  Cerezuela's  inexperience  and  lack  of  self-assertion, 
and  asking  that  the  new  inquisitor  to  be  sent  should  be  a  man  of 
greater  force.  Their  wishes  were  gratified  when  Antonio  Gutier- 
rez de  Ulloa  arrived,  March  31,  1571.  It  was  not  long  before 
his  arbitrary  and  scandalous  conduct  aroused  indignation,  but 
those  who  dared  to  complain  were  made  to  suffer.  Secret  infor- 
mation, however,  was  conveyed  to  the  Suprema  and  the  viceroy, 
the  Count  del  Villar,  was  unreserved  in  his  communications  to 
the  king,  representing  that  Ulloa  kept  spies  in  the  viceregal 
palace,  who  carried  off  papers  and  documents  and  that  he  had 

1  Mackenna,  p.  116. — Medina,  Lima,  II,  392. — Memorias  de  los  Vireyes,  VI,  51. 


356 

» indirectly  farmed  the  quicksilver  mines  of  Guancavelica,  making 
large  sums  to  the  detriment  of  the  royal  interests.  A  cleric 
named  Caspar  Zapata  de  Mendoza,  as  representative  of  the 
clergy  of  Peru,  after  several  vain  attempts,  managed  to  escape 
to  Brazil;  he  was  captured  by  the  French  and  carried  to  Dieppe, 
whence  he  made  his  way  to  Spain,  but  it  was  not  until  1592  that 
he  was  able  to  present  in  Toledo  a  memorial  to  Inquisitor-general 
Quiroga  in  which  the  conduct  of  Ulloa  was  set  forth  in  detail. 
His  promiscuous  amours  with  maids  and  married  women  were 
notorious;  he  publicly  kept  as  a  concubine  Catalina  More j on,  a 
married  woman,  who  used  her  influence  to  dictate  appointments 
and  modify  sentences  until,  after  repeated  efforts,  Villar  suc- 
ceeded in  banishing  her.  On  one  occasion  a  husband  found  him 
in  bed  with  his  wife;  "Ulloa  threatened  him  as  inquisitor  and  he 
slunk  away;  another  husband  was  less  timid,  he  killed  the  wife 
and  chased  the  adulterer  through  the  streets.  He  was  in  the 
habit  of  walking  the  streets  at  night  dressed  as  a  cavalier,  brawl- 
ing and  fighting,  and  on  one  Holy  Thursday  he  supped  with  a 
number  of  strumpets.  He  and  the  Dominican  Provincial,  Fray 
Francisco  de  Valderrama,  each  had  as  mistress  a  relative  of 
the  other;  when  the  three  years  of  the  provincialate  ended, 
Valderrama  aspired  to  be  prior  of  the  Lima  convent,  but  the 
new  Provincial,  Agustin  Montes,  refused  to  appoint  him  because 
he  was  a  bastard,  whereupon  Ulloa  went  to  the  convent,  thrust 
a  dagger  to  the  provincial's  breast  and  swore  he  would  kill  him, 
when  Montes  yielded.  He  was  involved  in  perpetual  contests 
with  the  judges  and  royal  officials,  whom  he  treated  without 
ceremony  or  justice,  interfering  with  their  functions,  of  which 
a  number  of  cases  were  given  which,  if  not  exaggerated,  show 
that  the  land  was  at  the  mercy  of  the  inquisitorial  officials,  who 
murdered,  robbed  and  took  women  at  their  pleasure,  and  any  who 
complained  were  fined  or  kept  chained  in  prison.  The  limitations 
of  the  fuero  enjoyed  by  the  ministers  of  the  Holy  Office  were 
disregarded  and  no  one  could  obtain  justice  against  them.1 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  44,  47,  204,  223. 


ABUSES  357 

Before  this  black  catalogue  of  crime  reached  the  Suprema, 
the  complaints  had  shown  that  some  interference  was  necessary, 
and  it  had  sent  as  visitador  Juan  Ruiz  de  Prado,  who  reached 
Lima  February  11,  1587.  He  had  full  authority  to  prosecute 
any  members  of  the  tribunal  and  to  send  them  with  the  evidence 
to  Spain  for  judgement,  but  those  who  anticipated  relief  were 
disappointed.  As  Villar  writes,  he  took  up  his  residence  with 
Ulloa,  and  his  officials  were  lodged  with  those  of  the  tribunal, 
who  made  much  of  them.  He  made  no  secret  that  he  came  to 
take  care  of  Ulloa's  honor,  so  that  all  complainants  were  frightened 
off.  Villar  had  his  special  grievances  which  show  how  impossible 
was  efficient  government,  when  a  power  existed  within  the  state 
superior  to  the  state  itself.  News  was  received  that  two  ships 
had  sailed  from  England  for  the  Pacific;  two  Englishmen,  John 
Drake,  cousin  of  the  famous  Sir  Francis,  and  Richard  Farrel, 
who  had  been  wrecked  in  the  River  Plate,  had  been  sent  to  the 
Inquisition,  as  was  the  fashion  with  heretic  prisoners;  the  viceroy 
desired  to  examine  them  to  learn,  if  possible,  something  about  the 
threatened  corsairs  and  he  asked  the  inquisitors  to  send  the  men 
to  him  or,  if  that  was  not  possible,  to  allow  one  of  his  officers  to 
examine  them,  or  again,  if  that  was  impossible,  to  examine  them 
themselves  and  communicate  to  him  what  they  could  learn; 
Ulloa  was  willing  but  Prado  refused,  saying  that  he  would  com- 
municate with  the  Suprema  who  could  inform  the  king,  thus 
postponing  for  a  year  the  information  wanted  at  the  moment. 
Then  there  came  an  alarm  about  some  English  ships  on  the  coast, 
and  Villar  ordered  all  who  were  liable  to  military  service  to  be 
in  readiness  to  defend  Callao.  Ulloa  and  Prado  assumed  that 
their  officials  and  familiars  would  fulfil  their  duty  by  guarding 
the  buildings  of  the  Inquisition,  and  gave  instructions  not  to 
obey  the  viceroy's  orders,  who  vainly  pointed  out  to  them 
that,  in  defending  the  city,  their  men  would  be  defending  the 
Inquisition.  At  the  auto  of  1587  they  virtually  took  possession 
of  the  city,  treated  the  viceroy  as  a  private  person  subject  to  their 
orders,  and  grossly  humiliated  him,  to  all  of  which  he  submitted 


353  PERU 

for  the  sake  of  peace.  They  meddled  in  everything,  and  with 
their  unlimited  power  of  excommunication  and  fines,  no  one  dared 
to  resist  them.  They  summoned  his  secretaries  before  them  and 
forced  them  to  reveal  everything,  even  of  the  most  confidential 
character,  and  to  produce  official  papers,  of  which  they  retained 
copies.  They  appointed  royal  officials  as  familiars,  thus  releasing 
them  from  all  responsibility  to  the  viceroy,  to  the  courts  and  to 
their  superiors.  Villar  declared  himself  helpless  to  remedy  all 
this  unless  the  king  would  interfere.1 

The  memorial  of  Mendoza  tells  the  same  story  of  the  alliance 
between  the  visitador  and  the  inquisitor,  and  mentions  a  case  of 
a  priest  named  Hernan  Gutierrez  de  Ulloa,  who  had  lent  a  con- 
siderable sum  to  Inquisitor  Ulloa  and  being  unable  to  obtain 
repayment  had  procured  a  papal  brief  against  him.  Prado  took 
the  brief  from  him,  fined  him  heavily,  suspended  him  for  a  year 
from  his  benefice  and  sentenced  him  to  four  years'  reclusion,  the 
result  being  that  he  died  under  the  persecution.2 

The  evil  friendship  between  these  men  did  not  last  long  and, 
in  January,  1588,  Prado  commenced  the  real  duties  of  his  office. 
He  overhauled  all  the  proceedings  of  the  tribunal  since  its  founda- 
tion, examining  1265  documents,  his  notes  on  which  covered  1650 
pages  and  fully  substantiated  his  conclusions  as  to  its  irregular 
methods,  its  cruel  delays,  and  its  inflicting  public  penances  for 
matters  not  of  faith  and  beyond  its  jurisdiction.  He  reported 
that  he  had  drawn  up  216  charges  against  Ulloa,  many  of  them 
applicable  also  to  Cerezuela.  There  were  six  about  his  relations 
with  women,  involving  much  publicity  and  scandal,  and  there 
would  have  been  more  had  he  cared  to  investigate  further  in  this 
direction.  He  said  that  Ulloa  had  accumulated  considerable 
sums  which  he  sent  to  Spain;  he  was  virtually  the  farmer  of  the 


1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  223-47,  251.  After  Villar's  term  was  ended,  in  1590,  the 
inquisitors  prosecuted  his  secretary,  Juan  Bello,  because,  when  some  one  insisted 
on  having  certain  papers,  Bello  exclaimed  impatiently  that  he  could  not  have 
them  even  if  God  wished  it,  and  also  because  he  had  said  that  he  would  rather 
have  to  do  with  demons  than  with  the  frailes.— Ibidem,  p.  258. 

» Ibidem,  p,  217 


CHARACTER  OF  INQUISITORS  359 

quicksilver  mines  of  Guancavelica,  for  when  bids  were  invited 
he  frightened  off  all  bidders  except  his  brother  and  an  accom- 
plice, who  obtained  the  contract  for  twenty  or  thirty  thousand 
pesos  less  than  others  were  ready  to  offer.  He  kept  around  him 
a  band  of  disreputable  creatures,  who  ministered  to  his  vices  and 
were  above  the  law.  No  one  could  collect  debts  of  them,  for 
when  suit  was  brought  he  would  order  it  discontinued  and  he 
was  obeyed.  When  he  was  sole  inquisitor  he  used  to  go  hunting 
for  a  fortnight  at  a  time,  leaving  the  accused  in  prison  and  delay- 
ing their  cases.  Sometimes  he  took  with  him  a  certain  mestizo 
who  had  a  quarrel  with  another  mestizo  and  was  prosecuted  in 
the  royal  court.  Ulloa  demanded  the  case,  claiming  that  the 
defendant  was  his  servant;  the  court  demurred  as  the  man  was 
not  de  familia  but  only  an  occasional  employee,  whereupon  he 
excommunicated  the  judge  and  all  the  alcaldes;  they  surrendered 
the  case  which  was  settled  before  him  for  eight  pesos.1 

When  Prado  presented  the  216  charges,  Ulloa  quietly  allowed 
a  year  to  elapse  before  undertaking  to  answer  them.  Prado 
seems  to  have  been  in  no  hurry.  Four  years  had  been  spent  in 
the  visit  and  the  Suprema  had  repeatedly  ordered  his  return, 
which  he  answered  by  alleging  Ulloa's  repeated  absences,  some- 
times for  months  together,  during  which  he  could  not  leave  the 
tribunal;  then  he  gave  sickness  as  an  excuse,  or  that  he  had  not 
a  real  with  which  to  pay  for  the  voyage.  Finally  he  sent  the 
papers  by  the  secretary,  Martinez  de  Marcolaeta,  who  started 
from  Callao  May  6, 1592,  and  reached  Spain  the  same  year.  After 
this  Ulloa  no  longer  kept  terms  with  him  and  ordered  him  to 
leave  the  tribunal,  which  he  refused  to  do.  Ulloa  then  denounced 
him  to  the  Suprema,  pointing  out  that  he  could  have  sailed  at  any 
departure  of  the  fleets  but  that  he  desired  to  remain  because  he 
was  in  partnership  with  an  Augustinian  fraile,  Francisco  de 
Figueroa,  whom  he  appointed  commissioner  at  Trujillo  and  then 
at  Potosi,  where  they  made  twenty-five  thousand  pesos.  Ulloa 
publicly  spoke  of  him  in  terms  too  opprobrious  for  any  lackey 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  262,  264,  274,  277-80,  282. 


360  PERU 

to  endure,  and  the  fiscal,  Arpide,  joined  in  accusing  him  of  unlaw- 
ful gains,  in  granting  licences  to  leave  the  country,  and  of  pro- 
tecting unworthy  persons  by  appointing  them  as  familiars.  The 
Suprema  attributed  the  quarrel  to  the  close  friendship  which 
Prado  had  formed  for  a  Dr.  Salinas,  a  man  of  notoriously  bad 
character,  whom  he  had  made  advocate  of  prisoners  and  then 
of  the  fisc,  in  which  capacity  he  had  his  suits  brought  before  the 
tribunal,  to  the  wronging  of  third  parties.1 

Finally  the  orders  of  the  Suprema  became  so  pressing  that 
Prado  was  obliged  to  leave  Lima,  April  14,  1594,  Ulloa  managing 
so  that  he  received  no  salary  for  his  return.  From  Havana  he 
sent  a  report  of  his  visit,  which  was  approved,  not  without  some 
rebuke.  Of  the  216  charges  against  Ulloa,  118  were  accepted 
and,  by  sentence  of  December  15,  1594,  he  was  suspended  for  five 
years,  fined  and  ordered  to  present  himself  before  the  inquisitor- 
general  for  reprimand — a  sentence  suggestive  of  the  customary 
indulgence  shown  to  official  malfeasance.  Prado  also  proposed 
thirty-one  articles  of  reform,  the  most  important  of  which  was 
the  deprivation  of  the  fuero,  in  criminal  cases,  of  familiars  and 
servants  of  commissioners;  subordinates  of  the  tribunal  were  to 
have  regular  salaries  so  as  to  remove  the  temptation  of  accepting 
bribes,  and  there  were  many  other  suggestions  for  improving  the 
operation  of  the  tribunal,  diminishing  injustice  and  relieving 
the  people  from  abusive  extortions.  The  Suprema  approved  of 
all  this  and  directed  Prado  to  return  to  Lima  and  put  the  reform 
into  execution,  but,  when  these  orders  reached  Havana,  Prado 
had  sailed  for  Spain;  he  did  not  get  back  to  Lima  until  1596,  by 
which  time  Ulloa  had  escaped  his  sentence  by  dying  and  there  is 
little  trace  of  any  reform  by  Prado,  who  died  January  18,  1599.2 

Meanwhile  the  vacant  inquisitorship  had  been  filled  by  the 
arrival,  February  4,  1594,  of  the  Licentiate  Antonio  Ord6nez  y 
F16res.  Ulloa  at  once  announced  his  intention  of  visiting  the 
district,  which  he  carried  out  in  spite  of  his  colleague's  protest 
to  delay  until  he  should  have  familiarized  himself  with  the  busi- 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  283-6,  l  Ibidem,  pp.  327-8, 


CHARACTER  OF  INQUISITORS  361 

ness  of  the  tribunal.  Ulloa  traversed  the  land  spreading  terror 
wherever  he  went  by  the  indulgence  of  his  passions.  A  memorial 
to  the  inquisitor-general,  from  a  gentleman  named  Diego  Vanegas, 
son  of  a  judge  of  the  Contratacion  of  Seville,  affords  an  illustration 
of  the  reckless  abuses  possible  under  such  institutions.  When 
Ulloa,  on  his  way  to  Charcas,  stopped  at  Cuzco  and  lodged  in 
the  house  of  Francisco  de  Loaysa,  a  servant  of  the  latter  came 
where  Vanegas  and  some  friends  were  talking  in  the  public  square, 
and  began  boasting  of  the  powers  of  the  inquisitor  which  were 
the  greatest  on  earth;  there  was,  he  said,  the  Licentiate  Parra 
who  had  some  words  with  a  servant  of  Ulloa,  in  consequence 
of  which  he  was  arrested;  Ulloa  called  him  a  dog  of  a  Jew,  an 
ensambenitado,  with  other  insults  and  threw  him  in  prison.  Vane- 
gas remarked  that  they  did  not  wish  to  hear  anything  more  about 
it,  and  for  this  he  was  seized  and  carried  before  Ulloa  who  called 
him  a  scoundrel,  an  Indian,  a  dog  and  other  opprobrious  epithets. 
Then  summoning  his  servants,  about  twenty  persons  rushed  in 
whom  he  told  to  kill  the  rascal.  One  of  them  gave  him  a  severe 
cut  on  the  head  while  the  rest  pummelled  him.  Dona  Mariana, 
wife  of  the  host,  entered  and  interceded  for  him;  Ulloa  declared 
that  he  was  going  to  give  him  five  hundred  lashes,  but  on  her 
entreaty  he  diminished  it  to  three  hundred,  then  to  two  hundred 
and  finally  consented  to  send  him  to  the  corregidor  with  orders  to 
banish  him.  Ulloa  left  Cuzco  the  next  day  but,  hearing  on  the 
road  that  Vanegas  had  said  that  he  would  go  to  Spain  to  complain, 
he  sent  back  orders  to  seize  him.  Vanegas  was  taken  from  his 
bed  where  he  was  recovering  from  his  wounds,  was  thrown  in 
prison  in  chains  and  the  next  day  was  carried  to  Siguana  where 
Ulloa  swore  him  on  the  cross,  made  him  sign  a  paper  without 
reading  it  and  carried  him  to  Potosi,  where  he  lay  chained  in 
prison  for  four  months.  Thence  he  was  sent  two  hundred 
leagues  to  Santa  Cruz  de  la  Sierra,  as  a  soldier  condemned  to 
serve  for  three  years  on  the  frontier  or  in  the  galleys.  Then  he 
was  returned  in  chains  through  Potosi  to  Misque,  being  wounded 
in  an  attempt  to  escape.  Carried  fifty  leagues  farther,  still  in 


362  PERU 

chains,  he  effected  his  escape  and,  after  many  perils  in  four 
hundred  leagues  of  travel,  he  reached  Lima,  where  he  reported 
to  the  viceroy  and  with  his  permission  and  that  of  Ordonez  he 
was  allowed  to  sail  for  Spain  to  present  his  complaint.1 

Ulloa  continued  his  so-called  visitation  in  this  fashion  until 
orders  came  in  October,  1596,  to  Cepeda,  President  of  the 
Audiencia  of  la  Plata,  to  notify  him  that  his  commission  would 
terminate  in  four  months.  He  appealed  to  the  viceroy  who  told 
him  that  he  must  obey  it,  and  Cepeda  ordered  him  to  leave 
PotosL  He  refused,  alleging  his  health,  but  the  corregidor, 
Alonso  Osorio,  communicated  to  him  a  further  order  of  the 
Audiencia,  requiring  him  to  do  so  in  ten  days.  He  still  pleaded 
sickness,  but  Osorio  arrested  him  and  all  his  servants  and,  after 
three  days,  ejected  him  from  the  city.  He  reached  Lima,  July  7, 
1597,  and  died  six  days  later  at  the  age  of  63.  He  attributed 
his  disgrace  to  the  report  of  a  visitador  of  the  Audiencia  of  Lima 
that  he  and  his  brother,  whom  he  had  made  alguazil  of  the 
tribunal,  had  embezzled  some  three  hundred  thousand  pesos.2 
If  there  were  even  partial  truth  in  the  statement  the  plea  of 
the  poverty  of  the  tribunal  can  be  understood. 

Meanwhile  Ordonez  had  commenced  his  official  career  by  letting 
it  be  known  that  all  who  had  claims  to  collect  within  the  district 
of  the  Inquisition  could  assign  them  to  him,  and  they  would  di- 
vide the  proceeds.  This  was  an  open  invitation  to  the  commis- 
sion of  fraud,  resulting,  as  the  secretary  reported,  in  converting 
the  Holy  Office  into  a  business  office.  He  also  took  money  from 
the  chest — at  one  time  as  much  as  ten  thousand  pesos — which 
he  confided  to  a  merchant  to  trade  for  him  in  Mexico.  Before 
the  year  was  out,  the  receiver  and  the  secretary  were  making 
bitter  complaints  of  him  to  the  Suprema — he  was  young,  inex- 
perienced, violent  tempered  and  abusive.  Those  who  came 
voluntarily  to  the  tribunal  to  discharge  their  consciences  were  so 
ill-treated  that  they  declared  they  would  rather  go  to  hell.  He 
would  order  the  secretary  to  alter  the  evidence  and,  if  a  witness 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  301,  313-17,  l  Ibidem,  pp.  317-18, 


CHARACTER  OF  INQUISITORS  863 

remonstrated,  he  would  be  abused  and  threatened.  On  his 
part  he  wrote  equally  unfavorable  accounts  of  his  subordinates; 
he  knew  that  they  assailed  him  but  he  ascribed  this  to  the  friends 
of  Ulloa  and  Prado.1 

Whether  the  Suprema  believed  these  accusations  or  not,  Ord6- 
.  nez  was  not  disturbed  and  continued  to  be  sole  inquisitor,  with  the 
exception  of  the  brief  second  term  of  Prado  from  1596  to  1599, 
until  the  arrival  of  Francisco  Verdugo,  a  new  inquisitor,  towards 
the  close  of  1601.  He  was  a  man  of  different  type,  who  had  been 
advocate  in  the  tribunal  of  Seville  and  fiscal  in  that  of  Murcia. 
While  a  strenuous  persecutor  of  heresy,  he  was  not  inclined  to 
abuse  his  office  and  he  shortly  reported  to  the  Suprema  that  they 
had  suspended  a  hundred  informaciones — cases  in  preparation — 
which  were  without  sufficient  proof  or  were  matters  that  did  not 
concern  the  Holy  Office.  Ordonez  continued  in  office  until  1612, 
when  he  became  Archbishop  of  the  Nuevo  Reino  de  Granada,  a 
promotion  that  was  not  to  his  taste,  as  he  complained  that  the 
revenues  of  the  see  were  insufficient  for  his  decent  support. 
Doubtless  it  afforded  fewer  opportunities  than  the  inquisitorship.2 

His  successor,  Andre's  Juan  Gaitan  reached  Lima,  October  12, 
1611;  he  had  been  fiscal  of  the  tribunals  of  Cuenca  and  Seville 
and  was  therefore  experienced  in  the  work.  About  the  same 
time  Panamd,  New  Granada  and  the  Antilles  were  detached  from 
the  tribunal  of  Lima  on  the  founding  of  that  of  Cartagena.3  In 
October,  1623,  Verdugo  left  Lima  to  occupy  the  see  of  Guamanga, 
to  which  he  had  been  promoted.  For  several  years  he  and  Gaitan 
had  been  on  such  bad  terms  that  they  would  not  speak  to  each 
other,  and  Gaitan  had  moreover  quarrelled  with  the  Viceroy 
Guadalcazar,  who  had  resumed  a  certain  repartimiento  of  Indians 
that  he  had  granted  to  the  inquisitor.  His  enforcement,  moreover, 
of  the  royal  orders  about  the  payment  of  salaries  was  bitterly 
resented  by  the  officials  and  intensified  the  embroilment.  The 
vacancy  left  by  Verdugo  was  soon  filled  by  Juan  de  Manozca  who, 
after  founding  the  tribunal  of  Cartagena,  was  sent  as  visitador 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  301-3.  2  Ibidem,  I,  329,  348.  »  Ibidem,  II,  5. 


364  PE&U 

of  the  Audiencia  of  Quito  and,  in  place  of  going  there  directly, 
came  to  Lima  and  occupied  the  position  of  inquisitor  ad  interim 
much  to  Gaitan's  disgust.  He  reported  to  the  Suprema  that  the 
condition  of  the  tribunal  was  deplorable;  unless  some  action  was 
taken  there  wrould  be  no  Inquisition,  but  only  a  gang  of  men 
obeying  a  will  the  most  obdurate  and  most  terrible  that  he  had 
ever  met,  under  which  the  tribunal  was  diverted  from  its  proper 
functions  to  serve  Gaitan's  interest  or  caprices,  for  good  or  for 
ill.  There  was  nothing  with  which  he  did  not  interfere,  and 
that  with  such  violence  that  he  offended  all  good  men,  and  even 
his  own  faction  followed  him  rather  through  force  than  willingly. 
The  fiscal  was  a  coward;  it  was  a  pity  to  pay  their  salaries  for 
they  did  nothing  but  impair  the  authority  of  the  Holy  Office.1 

In  October,  1625,  Juan  Gutierrez  Flores  arrived  to  take  Ver- 
dugo's  place.  In  consequence  of  Manozca's  representations  he 
was  ordered  to  make  a  secret  report,  which  was  equally  unfavor- 
able. Gaitan,  he  said,  controlled  the  tribunal  absolutely  and 
supported  all  the  claims  of  the  officials  without  regard  to  justice. 
This  was  thoroughly  understood  by  the  people,  and  we  can  readily 
imagine  the  oppression  and  terrorism  which  afflicted  the  com- 
munity. F16res  died,  September  22,  1631;  and  the  tribunal 
was  reinforced  by  the  appointment  of  Juan  de  Manozca  and 
Antonio  de  Castro  y  del  Castillo.  Gaitan  continued  to  serve  for 
some  years,  though  infirm  with  age  and  sickness,  accused  to  the 
last  of  abusing  his  position  for  gain.2  There  soon  followed  the 
Portuguese  complicidad  grande,  of  which  more  hereafter,  and  this, 
with  the  complications  of  the  resultant  confiscations,  for  years 
afforded  the  tribunal  abundant  occupation  more  or  less  legitimate. 
With  its  consequent  enrichment  there  came  torpidity  and  for 
many  years  it  did  little  work  and  its  annals  are  bare.  In  June, 
1688,  there  came  as  inquisitor  Francisco  de  Valera,  transferred 
from  the  tribunal  of  Cartagena,  in  order  to  restore  peace  to  that 
city,  disturbed,  as  we  shall  see  hereafter,  by  a  prolonged  conflict 
between  him  and  the  bishop,  Benavides  y  Piedrola.  This  transfer 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  14-15.  » Ibidem,  p.  16,  76-8. 


CHARACTER  OF  INQUISITOES  365 

had  been  arranged  for  1685,  but  he  had  delayed  obedience,  await- 
ing the  arrival  of  a  successor  and,  on  reaching  Lima,  he  was  met 
with  a  command  from  the  Suprema  to  return  to  Spain,  which 
he  evaded  on  the  ground  that  this  would  leave  but  a  single  inquisi- 
tor. He  paid  no  attention  to  a  royal  cedula  of  April  1,  1691, 
ordering  Viceroy  Monclova  to  send  him  at  once  to  Spain  without 
listening  to  excuses,  but  this  was  to  be  expected,  for  royal  com- 
mands were  not  obeyed  by  inquisitors  unless  they  were  trans- 
mitted by  the  Suprema.  Finally  the  latter  ordered  his  jubilation 
or  retirement  on  half-pay — the  usual  punishment  of  inquisitors 
whose  offences  were  too  flagrant  to  be  overlooked.  This  reached 
Lima  in  1703,  when  the  tribunal  submissively  answered  that 
it  would  obey  the  command  with  due  exactitude,  but  that  Valera 
had  died  on  the  previous  second  day  of  August.1 

Valera  had  imparted  some  vigor  to  the  tribunal  and  had  held 
public  autos  in  1693  and  1694,  but  there  was  not  another  until 
1733.  His  death  had  seriously  crippled  the  tribunal,  for  his 
colleague  Burrelo  had  died  in  1701,  the  third  inquisitor  Suarez 
was  old  and  disabled  by  asthma,  and  the  fiscal,  Ponte  y  Andrade, 
was  so  prostrated  with  gout  that,  for  twenty-two  months  prior 
to  November,  1704,  he  could  not  venture  out  of  doors.  By  this 
time  the  civil  business  of  the  tribunal  was  greater  than  that  of 
the  royal  Audiencia  and  it  necessarily  fell  into  confusion,  while 
matters  of  faith  were  neglected.  Suarez  asked  the  Suprema  for 
help  and  it  was  rendered  after  the  customary  fashion,  for  the  fiscal 
Ponte  was  appointed  inquisitor  and  an  old  professor  of  law,  who 
had  sought  the  priesthood,  Caspar  Ibanez,  was  made  fiscal. 
Quarrels  arose  immediately,  for  Ibanez  received  his  commission 
by  private  hand  and  was  sworn  in  immediately,  while  that  of 
Ponte  came  by  the  galleons.  Sudrez,  who  was  a  friend  of  Ibanez, 
endeavored  to  enforce  the  latter's  seniority,  which  carried  with 
it  considerable  emoluments,  and  this  was  resisted  by  Ponte. 
By  this  time  there  was  no  distinction  of  grade  between  inquisitor 
and  fiscal;  the  latter  had  the  title  of  inquisitor-fiscal,  and  the 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  253;  Cartagena,  pp.  343-44. 


366  PERU 

functions  were  interchangeable,  although  no  one  could  perform 
both — that  is  of  prosecutor  and  judge — in  any  given  case.  Ponte, 
in  1707,  exhaled  his  griefs  to  the  Suprema;  his  colleagues,  he  said, 
acted  irregularly;  Ibanez  assumed  to  be  both  fiscal  and  inquisitor 
in  the  same  case ;  the  situation  was  desperate  and  the  civil  business 
was  at  a  standstill.1 

For  more  than  a  quarter  of  a  century  there  was  no  improve- 
ment. Slender  as  was  the  business  of  the  tribunal  in  matters  of 
faith,  it  was  greatly  in  arrears.  Ibafiez,  who  had  become  senior 
inquisitor,  was  sometimes  unable  to  sit  for  three  months  at  a  time. 
Holidays,  beyond  those  on  the  register,  were  taken  until  they 
amounted  to  half  the  days  in  the  year.  Gutierrez  de  Cevallos, 
one  of  the  inquisitors,  on  being  made  Bishop  of  Tucuman,  in  1730, 
reported  to  the  Suprema  that  he  had  been  unable  to  expedite 
matters;  there  were  prisoners  who  had  been  confined  for  thirteen 
years,  of  which  eleven  had  passed  since  he  had,  as  fiscal,  presented 
the  formal  accusations — and  we  shall  see  that  six  more  were  to 
elapse  before  these  dreary  trials  came  to  an  end  in  the  quemadero? 

Ibafiez  finally  fell  into  dotage.  Sanchez  Calderon  had  become 
his  colleague  and  Diego  de  Unda  came  as  fiscal  in  1735,  to  be  rated 
as  inquisitor  when  Mateo  de  Amusquibar,  in  1737,  assumed  the 
former  position,  to  be  in  turn  made  inquisitor,  in  1744,  when  he 
had  attained  the  age  of  thirty,  which  was  the  minimum  for  that 
office.  Allusion  has  been  made  above  to  the  quarrels  over  the 
mismanagement  of  the  finances  by  the  receiver  Ilarduy,  with 
whom  Amusquibar  formed  an  alliance.  Amusquibar  wrote  to 
the  Suprema  most  damaging  reports  as  to  his  colleagues;  the 
irregularities  committed  in  serious  trials  for  heresy  and  the 
monstrous  contradictions  in  civil  cases.  Unda,  he  said,  acceded 
to  all  that  Calderon  did,  and  Calderon  followed  his  own  whims  in 
opposition  to  the  precise  orders  of  the  Suprema,  while  the  same 
disregard  of  instructions  was  shown  in  appointments  and  in  dis- 
missals from  office.  There  had,  indeed,  been  gross  irregularities 
in  the  trial  culminating  in  the  great  auto  of  December  23,  1736, 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  212-14.  3  Ibidem,  pp.  283,  285. 


CHARACTER  OF  INQUISITORS  367 

in  which  a  woman  and  two  effigies  had  been  relaxed.  One  of  the 
effigies  was  that  of  a  Jesuit  Padre,  Juan  Francisco  de  Ulloa,  who 
had  died  in  1710  with  a  reputation  of  sanctity;  the  Jesuits  had 
made  great  efforts  to  avert  it  and  were  deeply  incensed  at  the 
disgrace  inflicted  on  the  Society.  This  may  perhaps  aid  to 
explain  why,  when  Calderon  and  Unda  sent  their  official  relation 
of  the  cases,  the  Suprema  had  replied  that  it  felt  the  greatest 
sorrow  and  scandal  in  seeing  how  the  affairs  of  religion  were 
treated,  in  offence  both  of  religion  and  justice,  and  of  the  honor 
of  the  Holy  Office,  with  the  threat  that,  if  in  future  the  laws 
were  not  observed,  the  inquisitors  would  be  dismissed.  Calderon 
and  Unda,  moreover,  were  greatly  discredited  by  their  amours. 
They  kept  as  concubines  two  sisters,  Magdalena  and  Bartola 
Homo,  the  daughters  of  the  alcaide  of  the  prison.  Magdalena 
had  three  daughters  whom  Calderon  educated  in  the  monastery 
of  las  Catalinas,  where  they  were  known  as  las  inquisidoras. 
Homo  was  an  accomplice  of  Ilarduy,  but  when  Calderon  and  Unda 
dismissed  others  who  were  compromised,  they  retained  him  on 
account  of  their  relations  with  his  daughters.1 

These  scandals  and  Calderon's  commercial  enterprises  were 
weapons  used  by  Ilarduy  who,  as  we  have  seen,  sent  to  Spain 
emissaries  with  a  hundred  thousand  pesos  to  accomplish  Cal- 
deron's downfall.  One  of  these,  Felipe  de  Altolaguirre,  Ilarduy's 
son-in-law,  before  his  departure,  openly  boasted  that  he  would  not 
return  without  securing  Calderon's  dismissal,  and  after  he  came 
back  he  publicly  spoke  of  having  bribed  the  inquisitor-general  and 
Suprema,  while  Ilarduy  said  that  it  had  cost  him  forty  thousand 
pesos.2  What  was  attained  was  the  appointment  of  a  visitador, 
armed  with  supreme  powers.  The  person  selected  was  Pedro 
Antonio  de  Arenaza,  inquisitor  of  Valencia,  who  was  promised  a 
salary  of  fourteen  thousand  pesos  and  perquisites.  If  Calderon  is  to 
be  believed,  Altolaguirre,  the  envoy  of  Ilarduy,  told  him  that  there 


1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  311-14,  317. — Joseph  Bermudez  de  la  Torre  y  Solier,  Tri- 
unfos  del  S.  Oficio  Peruano,  Lima,  1737. — Palma,  p.  107. 
3  Medina,  Lima,  II,  318-19. 


368  PERU 

were  rich  pickings  to  be  had  from  the  fines  to  be  imposed  on  the 
inquisitors;  that  he  could  make  large  profits  from  merchandise 
which  he  could  carry  with  him;  that  he  would  have  the  appoint- 
ment of  corregidores  in  Piura  and  el  Cercado,  yielding  him  thirty- 
six  thousand  pesos;  that  his  travelling  expenses  would  be  paid  and 
that,  on  his  return  to  Spain,  he  could  not  get  a  seat  in  the  Suprema 
unless  he  took  with  him  a  hundred  thousand  pesos.1  His  expe- 
rience in  Madrid  had  evidently  familiarized  him  with  the  depth  of 
corruption  existing  there. 

The  impression  conveyed  by  this  is  confirmed  by  the  commer- 
cial aspect  of  the  visitador's  voyage,  strangely  at  variance  with 
its  object  of  reforming  abuses.  To  escape  the  risk  of  English 
cruisers,  Altolaguirre  and  Arenaza  sailed  from  Lisbon  to  Rio,  the 
visitador  taking  with  him  a  large  assortment  of  goods  and  some 
negro  slaves  for  sale.  Rio  was  reached  in  the  middle  of  1744  and 
Buenos  Ayres  in  November,  whence  they  passed  to  Santiago  and 
arrived  in  Lima  early  in  March,  1745.  On  March  15th  Arenaza 
presented  his  credentials  and  at  once  examined  the  funds  in  the 
chest.  Two  weeks  later,  when  Unda  went  to  the  chapel  as  usual 
to  hear  mass,  Arenaza's  notary  told  him  to  go  to  Amusquibar's 
house.  As  he  was  about  to  enter,  the  notary  made  him  get  into 
a  carriage  standing  at  the  door,  when,  accompanied  by  a  secre- 
tary, he  was  carried  to  the  Franciscan  convent  in  the  neighboring 
village  of  la  Magdalena,  with  orders  to  speak  to  no  one.  His 
property  was  at  once  embargoed,  his  house  locked  up  and  placed 
under  guard. 

Calderon  was  arrested  in  even  more  unceremonious  fashion. 
He  had  been  sick  in  bed  for  three  days  when  Yrazabal,  the  alguazil 
mayor,  who  had  been  reinstated,  penetrated  to  his  apartments. 
His  physician  and  chaplain,  who  were  with  him,  were  dismissed 
and  an  order  was  read  suspending  him  from  office,  embargoing 
his  property  and  ordering  his  departure  for  Limatamba.  Yraza- 
bal collected  all  the  keys,  and  at  once  commenced  an  inventory 
which  consumed  two  days.  Calderon  remained  in  bed  under 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  319. 


CHARACTER  OF  INQUISITORS  369 

guard,  with  orders  to  speak  to  no  one  and  no  one  was  allowed  to 
leave  the  premises.  The  next  day  he  was  sent,  in  Amusquibar's 
coach,  to  Limatamba,  where  two  Dominicans  were  ready  to  guard 
him  and,  on  May  3,  he  was  carried  to  Guaura.  For  a  month 
there  was  busy  search  for  the  sequestrated  property.  Calderon 
declared  that  it  consisted  mostly  of  deposits  confided  to  him,  and 
he  says  that  he  was  offered  reinstatement  and  the  withdrawal 
of  the  visitation,  if  he  would  give  security  for  fifty  thousand 
pesos  and  Unda  for  twenty  thousand.1 

Meanwhile  Arenaza  was  openly  retailing  his  negroes  and  his 
goods,  through  his  secretary  Gabiria,  in  rooms  obligingly  placed 
at  his  disposal  by  the  Jesuits  in  their  college.  Ilarduy  collected 
for  him  the  proceeds  and  the  traffic  was  so  successful  that  Arenaza 
was  speedily  able  to  remit  to  Spain  forty  thousand  four  hundred 
pesos.  The  friendly  assistance  of  the  Jesuits  was  due  not  only 
to  their  rancor  against  Calderon,  but  also  to  their  desire  to 
shield  one  of  then*  members,  whose  arrest  had  been  ordered 
and  evaded  by  hurrying  him  away  and  procuring  the  arrest 
of  another  party  in  his  place.  They  were  Arenaza's  advisers 
and  Calderon's  transfer  to  the  secret  prison  had  been  determined 
when  an  unlooked-for  event  changed  the  aspect  of  affairs.  The 
Inquisitor-general,  Manrique  de  Lara,  died  January  10,  1746,  and 
was  succeeded,  July  26th,  by  Pardo  y  Cuesta.  Calderon  received 
the  news  by  way  of  Potosi  and  claimed  that  Arenaza's  commission 
expired  with  the  grantor.  He  hastened  to  Lima  where  he  recused 
Arenaza  as  his  judge,  threatened  to  shoot  him  and  asked  the 
Count  of  Superunda,  then  viceroy,  to  give  him  no  support. 
Superunda  was  strongly  in  favor  of  Arenaza  and  ordered  Calderon 
to  leave  the  city  within  ten  hours,  nor  does  it  need  Calderon's 
accusation  that  he  was  bribed  to  this  by  the  Jesuits.  Arenaza, 
in  a  letter  to  his  brother,  asserts  that  Calderon  attempted  to 
buy  him  off  and,  when  this  failed,  threatened  him,  but  he  would 
gain  nothing  by  this  "for  I  am  resolved  rather  to  be  fried  in  a 
frying-pan  in  the  public  plaza."2 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  320-22.  *  Ibidem,  pp.  322-26. 

24 


370  PERU 

Calderon's  faction  in  the  city  had  been  active  in  discrediting 
Arenaza  with  pamphlets,  lampoons  and  caricatures.  The  vice- 
roy stood  by  him,  holding  that  his  commission  emanated  from 
the  Suprema  and  had  not  lapsed,  but  still  he  sought  to  effect 
a  settlement.  At  one  time  it  was  agreed  that  the  inquisitors 
should  resume  their  offices  and  the  sequestrations  be  lifted,  on 
their  giving  security  in  fifty  thousand  pesos  to  answer  judicially 
to  the  charges  but,  from  some  cause,  the  arrangement  fell  through. 
Then  came  the  great  earthquake  of  October  28,  1746,  followed 
by  pestilence,  which,  for  a  time,  suspended  all  action.  Calderon 
had  his  agents  at  work  with  the  Suprema,  which  resolved,  in 
April,  1747,  that  the  inquisitors  should  be  restored  and  the  seques- 
tration be  lifted;  that  Arenaza's  functions  should  be  limited  to 
the  subordinate  officials,  and  that  the  viceroy  should  select  some 
one  to  replace  him  as  respected  the  inquisitors.  It  was  nearly 
a  year  before  these  orders  reached  Peru,  but,  on  March  4,  1748, 
Calderon  and  Unda  entered  the  city  triumphantly,  in  coaches 
escorted  by  a  crowd  of  negroes  and  mulattos,  with  bands  of  music 
and  scattering  of  flowers,  while  the  bells  of  the  convents  of  which 
they  were  patrons  sounded  a  joyous  peal,  the  demonstration 
continuing  for  two  days. 

Arenaza  was  humiliated  and,  when  Superunda  received  a 
commission  in  blank  for  a  new  visitador,  the  warning  was  quite 
sufficient  to  deter  any  competent  person  from  accepting  the  per- 
ilous position.  All  to  whom  it  was  offered  declined,  pointing  out 
the  fate  of  Arenaza  and  the  danger  of  arousing  enmities  that 
would  blast  their  honor  and  reputation.  Superunda  therefore 
brought  Arenaza  and  the  inquisitors  together  and,  after  a  long 
conference,  it  was  agreed  that  the  sequestration  should  be  lifted 
and  that  they  would  sit  with  Arenaza  in  the  tribunal,  but  they 
failed  to  comply  with  their  promise  and  the  business  was  carried 
on  by  Arenaza  and  Amusquibar.  Unda  died,  May  27,  1748,  of 
apoplexy  following  a  visit  paid  to  a  house  where  he  had  illicit  rela- 
tions with  the  daughters.  His  funeral  was  dismal,  even  Calderon 
refusing  to  be  present,  saying  that  he  had  died  as  he  had  lived. 


CHARACTER  OF  INQUISITORS  371 

Superunda  reported  to  the  inquisitor-general  that  affairs  were 
beyond  remedy  by  a  continuance  of  the  visitation,  and  Arenaza 
was  ordered  to  return  to  Spain.  This  order  reached  Lima  at 
the  close  of  1750  and  he  sailed  from  Callao  August  11,  1751,  com- 
plaining bitterly  that  his  salary  of  fourteen  thousand  pesos  had 
been  cut  down  to  fifty-nine  hundred.  Amusquibar,  however, 
states  that  he  was  paid  in  addition  eighteen  thousand  five  hundred 
for  his  outward  expenses  and  living  and  eight  thousand  for  those 
of  his  return,  which  conflicts  with  the  statement  of  Viceroy  Super- 
unda that  he  embarked  wholly  destitute  of  money.  He  died 
on  the  passage  at  Cartagena,  but  his  secretary  went  on  to  Spain 
with  the  papers  of  the  visitation. 

The  decision  of  the  Suprema  had  suspended  Calderon  until  he 
should  answer  judicially  the  charges  made  against  him,  and  he 
consequently  lived  in  retirement,  while  the  tribunal  was  carried 
on  by  Amusquibar  and  Rodriguez  Delgado,  who  had  been  sent 
out  to  replace  Unda.  As  usual  they  quarrelled  and,  in  1754, 
Amusquibar  formally  demanded  that  his  colleague  should  be- 
removed  by  promotion  to  the  episcopate,  for  he  was  inquisitor 
only  in  name,  being  utterly  inefficient  and  incapable.  Rod- 
riguez, on  his  side,  described  Amusquibar  as  arbitrary  and  impene- 
trably obstinate;  a  case  had  been  ready  for  final  sentence  for  a 
year,  yet  he  could  not  be  brought  to  agree  as  to  its  settlement. 
The  sudden  death  of  Rodriguez,  however,  October  31,  1756, 
restored  peace  and  Jose  de  Salazar  y  Cevallos,  who  was  appointed 
in  his  place,  died  in  November,  1757,  before  he  could  assume 
possession,  so  that  Amusquibar  remained  sole  inquisitor.  He 
paid  so  little  attention  to  his  duties  that  in  five  months  he  was 
only  three  times  in  the  audience-chamber  and,  on  the  plea  of 
illness,  he  absented  himself  from  Lima  and  appointed  as  his 
representative  the  fiscal,  Bartolome*  Lopez  Grille,  an  act  which 
excited  much  adverse  comment. 

Meanwhile  nothing  was  heard  as  to  the  dealings  of  the  Suprema 
with  the  papers  of  the  visitation.  They  seem  to  have  been  gone 
over  with  even  more  than  customary  deliberation  and  we  chance 


372  PERU 

to  learn  that,  in  1762,  Calderon  was  charged  with  improper 
conduct  of  the  cases  of  Bartolome*  Cortez  de  Umansoro  and 
Andre's  de  Muguruza.  In  1763  the  Suprema  adopted  the  expe- 
dient of  sending  to  the  Viceroy  Armat  y  Yuniant  blank  com- 
missions by  which  to  appoint  two  competent  ecclesiastics  who 
with  Amusquibar  should  form  the  court  to  try  the  charges.  The 
instructions  reached  Lima  in  1764,  by  which  time  both  Calderon 
and  Amusquibar  had  passed  away  and  thus,  some  twenty  years 
after  its  inception,  the  visitation  died  a  natural  death,  every  one 
concerned  in  it  having  passed  to  a  higher  jurisdiction.1 

A  paralysis  had  fallen  on  the  tribunal  and  from  this  time  its 
functions  almost  ceased,  although  its  organization  was  kept  com- 
plete and  its  pay-roll  suffered  no  diminution.  One  of  its  last 
autos  was  held  in  1773,  in  which  only  eight  penitents  appeared. 
Possibly  this  torpidity  only  rendered  its  official  positions  more 
attractive,  for  they  came  to  be  a  matter  of  almost  open  bargain 
and  sale.  In  1789,  Cristobal  de  Cos,  chief  clerk  in  the  secre- 
tariat of  the  Suprema,  commenced  to  traffic  in  them  through  his 
agent,  Fernando  Pielago,  one  of  the  secretaries  of  the  Lima 
tribunal.  To  save  the  expense  of  transportation,  the  Suprema 
had  for  some  time  adopted  the  practice  of  appointing  natives  or 
residents  of  Peru,  which  may  have  given  rise  to  the  sale  of  offices 
or  may,  perhaps,  only  have  rendered  it  notorious,  for  Cos  could 
not  have  transacted  the  business  without  the  connivance  and 
participation  of  his  superiors.  Pie*lago  himself  had  paid  three 
thousand  pesos  for  his  position,  and  Manuel  de  Vado  Calderon 
the  same,  for  the  office  of  secretary  of  sequestrations.  Narciso 
de  Aragon  gave  six  hundred  for  a  minor  position  and  three  cases 
are  mentioned  in  which  sums  were  paid  for  jubilation,  or  retire- 
ment on  half-pay,  with  the  privilege  of  appointing  a  successor. 
The  culmination  was  reached  in  the  career  of  Pedro  Zalduegui, 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  326-8,  331,  353-6.— Memorias  de  los  Vireyes,  IV,  69-72, 
490-91.— Archive  nacional  de  Lima,  Protocol©  225,  ExptM  5276,  5278. 

It  is  to  the  credit  of  Arenaza  that,  in  the  earthquake  of  1746,  which  ruined 
the  buildings  of  the  Inquisition,  the  prisoners  were  rescued  by  his  efforts,  he  him- 
self sustaining  injury  and  one  of  his  servants  being  killed. — Medina,  II,  331. 


CHARACTER  OF  INQUISITORS  373 

who  commenced  as  sweeper  and  sacristan  of  the  chapel  of  the 
tribunal.  He  was  wholly  illiterate,  but  he  was  a  shrewd  trader 
and  he  paid  the  capellan  mayor  of  the  tribunal  a  thousand  pesos 
to  surrender  his  place  to  him.  Finally,  through  Pielago  and  Cos, 
he  bought  the  position  of  inquisitor  for  the  sum  of  fourteen  thou- 
sand ducats;  there  was  little  concealment  in  the  transaction  and 
the  scandal  was  great.  The  Suprema  was  obliged  to  order  an 
investigation  which  it  confided  to  the  Inquisitors  Abarca  and 
Matienzo.  In  a  letter  of  November  8,  1794,  they  confirmed  the 
reports  as  to  the  sale  of  offices  and  the  incompetence  of  those  who 
bought  them.  Against  this  Zalduegui,  in  1796,  defended  himself, 
by  asserting  that  the  trouble  arose  from  his  refusal  to  join  with 
his  colleagues  in  their  mismanagement  of  the  affairs  of  the 
tribunal  for  their  private  interests.  At  length  he  manifested 
his  gross  ignorance  in  a  controversy  with  Bartolome'  Guerrero  on 
the  intricate  question  of  sanctifying  grace;  they  obliged  him  to 
define  his  position  and,  on  the  strength  of  the  doctrinal  error 
involved,  they  prosecuted  him  and  suspended  him  from  office. 
That  the  Suprema  restored  him  is  fairly  suggestive  of  another 
payment  and  he  retained  his  office  till  the  last.1 

Inquisitors  of  the  character  thus  indicated,  owning  no  superior 
save  the  distant  inquisitor-general  and  Suprema,  armed  with 
the  terrible  power  of  excommunication  which  none  but  them- 
selves could  remove,  judging  all  and  judged  by  none,  could  not 
fail  to  be  a  disturbing  element  in  the  colonial  administration. 
They  were  at  the  head  of  a  body  of  officials  and  familiars,  scattered 
over  the  land,  who  enjoyed  exemption  from  all  other  jurisdiction, 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  384-6,  398. 

W.  B.  Stevenson,  Secretary  to  Lord  Cochrane,  who  was  brought  before  the 
tribunal  in  1813,  shortly  before  the  decree  of  suppression  was  received,  gives  a 
vivid  description  of  Zalduegui — "I  knew  the  inquisitors — but  how  changed  from 
what  at  other  times  I  had  seen  them !  The  pursy  swarthy  Abarca,  in  the  centre, 
scarcely  half  filling  his  chair  of  state — the  fat  monster  Zalduegui  on  his  left,  his 
corpulent  paunch  being  oppressed  by  the  arms  of  his  chair,  and  blowing  through 
his  nostrils  like  an  over-fed  porpoise — the  fiscal.  Sobrino,  on  his  right,  knitting 
his  black  eye-brows  and  striving  to  produce  in  his  unmeaning  face  the  semblance 
of  wisdom." — Twenty  Years'  Residence  in  South  America,  I,  264  (London,  1825). 


374  PERU 

secular  and  ecclesiastical,  and  who  were  sure,  whatever  crimes 
they  might  commit,  to  find  protection  and  mercy  in  the  tribunal. 
Even  their  servants  and  slaves  had  the  benefit  of  this  fuero  and 
formed  a  peculiarly  obnoxious  class  in  the  community.  The 
maintenance  and  extension  of  these  privileges  involved  the  tribunal 
in  constant  strife  with  the  authorities,  lay  and  spiritual,  quarrels 
which  were  carried  on  with  a  violence  frequently  destructive  to 
the  public  peace.  The  governmental  officials,  however  high- 
placed,  who  sought  to  curb  inquisitorial  arrogance,  could  have 
slender  hope  of  support  from  their  royal  master.  As  we  have 
seen  in  the  chapter  on  Mexico,  there  was  preserved  in  the  Madrid 
archives  the  formula  of  a  letter  addressed  to  viceroys,  insisting 
on  their  subservience  to  the  Inquisition.  This  in  1603  was  duly 
sent  to  the  Marquis  of  Monterey,  Viceroy  of  Peru.1  How  often 
this  was  repeated  it  would  be  impossible  to  say,  but  in  1655,  at 
least,  it  was  sent  to  the  Count  of  Alba  by  Philip  IV,  as  a  warn- 
ing in  consequence  of  some  squabbles  in  which  he  came  to  be 
involved  with  the  tribunal.2  When  the  colonial  Inquisitions  were 
founded,  Philip  II,  by  a  cedula  of  August  16,  1570,  took  the 
inquisitors  and  all  the  officials  under  the  royal  protection  and 
decreed  that  any  one,  no  matter  of  what  rank,  who  disturbed 
or  injured  them  should  incur  the  penalty  of  violating  the  safe- 
guard, and  this  was  repeated  by  Philip  III  in  1610.3 

Francisco  de  Toledo,  the  first  viceroy  who  had  to  deal  with 
the  Inquisition,  was  a  man  of  decided  character  who,  by  holding 
the  purse-strings,  managed  to  keep  within  bounds  Cerezuela, 
who  was  of  a  yielding  disposition.  There  was  dissension  however, 
for  which  Alonso  de  Arceo,  canon  of  la  Plata,  decried  him  as  a 
heretic  and  a  forger,  whom  the  tribunal  dared  not  accuse,  but 
when  Toledo  asked  it  to  prosecute  him,  it  evaded  the  request.4 
The  next  viceroy,  the  Count  del  Villar,  was  weaker,  while  Ulloa, 
as  we  have  seen,  enforced  the  prerogatives  of  the  Holy  Office 


1  Hoyo,  Relacion  del  auto  de  fe  de  20  Die.  de  1694  (Lima,  1695). 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  183-5. 

•  Recop.  de  las  Indias,  Lib.  i,  Tit.  xix,  ley  2.  «  Medina,  Lima,  I,  181. 


TROUBLES  OF  VICEROYS  375 

with  a  masterful  hand.  The  quarrels  which  arose  were  long  and 
intricate  and  were  conducted  in  a  way  to  abase  thoroughly  the 
vice-regal  authority.  We  have  seen  that  Villar  banished  Catalina 
Morejon  to  put  an  end  to  the  scandal  of  her  relations  with  Inquisi- 
tor Ulloa;  this  may  have  been  either  the  cause  or  a  result  of  the 
ill-feeling  between  them,  but  motives  for  dissension  could  not  be 
lacking,  when  the  domineering  spirit  of  the  tribunal  refused 
obedience  to  all  constituted  authority,  and  could  always  frame 
some  excuse  for  asserting  its  superior  jurisdiction. 

May  30, 1587,  the  English  made  a  descent  on  Payta,  where  they 
burnt  some  churches  and  convents  and  desecrated  some  images. 
They  had  been  piloted  into  the  port  by  Geronimo  de  Rivas,  an 
inhabitant  of  Payta,  whom  they  had  captured  at  sea  and  who 
remained  after  their  departure.  The  deputy  corregidor  natu- 
rally arrested  him  and  Villar  ordered  him  to  be  sent  by  land  to 
Lima  for  examination.  In  some  way  the  inquisitorial  commis- 
sioner, the  Mercenarian  Fray  Pedro  Martinez,  was  interested  in 
him  and  to  save  him  claimed  and  obtained  him  from  the  corregidor 
as  a  fautor  of  heretics,  justiciable  by  the  Inquisition.  He  was 
forwarded  by  sea  to  Lima  and  was  withheld  from  the  viceroy. 
In  August  Fray  Martinez  came  to  Lima  to  attend  a  chapter  of 
his  Order,  which  made  him  comendador  of  his  ruined  convent 
so  that  he  could  rebuild  it.  Villar,  who  felt  much  aggrieved, 
forbade  the  Provincial,  Fray  Thomas  de  Valdez,  to  issue  the 
commission,  but  the  tribunal  interposed  and  by  threats  of  excom- 
munication compelled  its  delivery.  Soon  after  this,  at  the  auto 
of  November  30,  1587,  there  arose  a  quarrel,  probably  about  the 
distribution  of  seats,  which  resulted  in  the  excommunication 
of  the  viceroy,  who  was  compelled  to  seek  absolution. 

Villar  sustained  an  even  more  humiliating  defeat  in  another 
encounter  which  exhibits  the  elasticity  of  inquisitorial  jurisdic- 
tion. A  young  man  named  Antonio  de  Arpide  y  Ulloa  (possibly 
of  kin  to  Inquisitor  Ulloa)  came  to  Lima,  with  orders  to  admit 
him  to  a  "lance"  in  the  lancers  of  the  guard,  which  was  accord- 
ingly done.  Ulloa  appointed  him  fiscal  of  the  tribunal,  although, 


376  PERU 

according  to  the  Visitador  Prado,  he  was  naturally  ill-conditioned, 
a  youth  in  all  things,  careless  in  his  office,  and  it  was  a  scandal 
to  see  a  fiscal  wearing  the  garments  of  a  layman.  Villar  thereupon 
discharged  him  from  the  guard,  replacing  him  with  Don  Luis  de 
Nevares,  for  the  sufficient  reason  that  the  two  positions  were 
incompatible  and  that  no  one  could  enjoy  two  salaries.  Arpide 
petitioned  the  tribunal  for  relief;  as  its  official  he  was  entitled  to 
its  fuero  and  the  viceroy  had  no  authority  over  him.  The  tribu- 
nal confirmed  this  view;  the  viceroy  had  no  right  to  dismiss  him, 
and  it  ordered,  under  a  penalty  of  a  thousand  pesos,  the  officers 
of  the  guard  to  strike  from  the  rolls  the  name  of  Nevares  and 
replace  that  of  Arpide,  to  whom  the  salary  must  be  paid.  The 
officers  represented  that  they  were  under  the  viceroy's  orders, 
when  they  were  told  that  they  had  thus  incurred  excommuni- 
cation and  the  penalty.  The  affair  was  put  into  the  shape  of  a 
suit  between  Arpide  and  Nevares,  in  which  the  tribunal  of  course 
gave  a  decision  in  favor  of  the  former  and,  when  the  latter 
appealed  the  Suprema,  it  refused  to  allow  the  appeal. 

There  was  another  source  of  trouble  in  the  case  of  Dr.  Salinas, 
a  man  of  evil  reputation,  who  was  appointed  advocate  of  prison- 
ers. Previous  to  this  appointment  he  had  uttered  disparaging 
remarks  about  the  viceroy,  and  had  a  quarrel  with  his  secretary 
Juan  Bello.  Villar  procured  the  assent  of  Ruiz  de  Prado  and 
arrested  Salinas,  prosecuted  him  and  subjected  him  to  severe 
torture  in  the  course  of  the  trial.  Then  the  tribunal  interfered 
and  Villar  surrendered  him  and  all  the  papers.  This  did  not 
satisfy  Ulloa  and  Prado,  who  forgot  their  mutual  strife  and 
united  to  give  the  viceroy  a  final  blow,  as  his  five  years'  term 
of  service  was  drawing  to  an  end.  Formal  proceedings  were 
commenced  against  him.  September  26,  1589,  Arpide  as  fiscal 
presented  his  clamosa  or  indictment,  representing  that  Villar  had 
always  been  disaffected  to  the  Inquisition,  had  talked  against  it, 
had  impeded  it  and  had  diminished  its  authority  as  far  as  he 
could.  In  the  case  of  his  secretary,  Juan  Bello,  he  had  sent  a 
threatening  message;  at  the  auto  of  November  30,  1587,  he  had 


TROUBLES  OF  VICEROYS  377 

invented  means  to  deprive  it  of  the  services  of  its  officials ;  as  soon 
as  Dr.  Salinas  received  an  appointment,  he  had  prosecuted  him 
for  trifling  words  uttered  long  before;  in  the  case  of  Gabriel 
Martinez  de  Esquivel,  familiar  in  Huanuco,  he  had  ordered  him 
to  report  forthwith  in  Spain  to  the  Council  of  Indies  and,  when 
asked  by  the  tribunal  for  his  reasons,  he  had  made  an  offensive 
reply;  he  had  even  made  investigations  against  the  persons  and 
reputations  of  the  inquisitors  themselves.  From  all  this,  which 
was  notorious,  it  followed  that  he  had  incurred  the  pains  and 
censures  provided  by  the  bull  Si  de  protegendis  of  Pius  V  (April 
1,  1569),  against  all  who  offend  or  despise  the  officials  of  the 
Inquisition,  wherefore  the  tribunal  was  asked  to  declare  him  to 
have  incurred  these  censures,  notwithstanding  any  absolution 
ad  cautelam  which  he  might  have  obtained,  so  that  he  might  serve 
as  an  example  to  all  Christian  people  of  their  obligation  to  respect 
and  reverence  everything  connected  with  the  Holy  Office. 

Without  going  through  the  prescribed  formalities  of  submitting 
the  matter  to  calificadores  and  assembling  consultores  and,  with- 
out hearing  the  accused,  the  tribunal  that  same  morning  decreed 
that  Villar  had  incurred  the  censures  of  the  bull  of  Pius  V,  while 
for  the  other  penalties  prescribed  in  it  he  was  remitted  to  the 
Suprema.  To  this  the  viceroy  replied,  October  3d,  that  he  had 
only  sought  to  perform  the  duties  of  his  office,  but  seeing  that 
they  had  declared  him  to  be  under  the  excommunication  of  the 
bull,  as  an  obedient  son  of  the  Church  he  begged  for  absolution 
and  asked  that  it  be  speedy,  as  he  was  under  orders  to  sail  for 
Spain.  For  an  answer  to  this  he  waited  until  the  16th,  when  he 
sent  a  judge  and  alcalde  de  corte,  both  consul  tors  of  the  Inqui- 
sition, to  the  tribunal  to  enquire  about  his  petition.  There  was 
read  to  them  a  reply,  dated  on  the  14th,  to  the  effect  that  the 
inquisitors  had  repeatedly  intimated  to  him  that  he  had  incurred 
these  censures  and,  in  fact,  it  was  so  self-evident  that  every  one 
could  have  known  it,  for  every  one  knows  that  all  incur  them  who 
impede  the  Inquisition  directly  or  indirectly,  or  who  ill-treat,  in 
word  or  deed,  the  inquisitors  or  officials  to  the  injury  of  their 


378  PERU 

reputation  and  authority,  and  that  good  intentions  are  power- 
less to  avert  it.  The  viceroy's  acts  had  been  so  notorious  that 
it  was  needless  to  recite  them  and,  before  absolution  could  be 
granted,  condign  satisfaction  must  be  rendered  for  them,  espe- 
cially to  Dr.  Diego  de  Salinas,  while,  as  regarded  the  injuries  to 
the  Holy  Office,  he  was  referred  to  the  Suprema.  As  it  had  long 
been  evident  that  he  was  under  these  censures,  without  seeking 
their  removal,  and  as  he  was  about  to  undertake  a  long  and 
perilous  voyage,  the  inquisitors  had  been  moved  by  loving  charity 
to  bring  him  to  a  recognition  of  the  condition  of  his  soul.  They 
were  ready  to  absolve  him  as  soon  as  he  should  do  what  was 
requisite  and,  in  consideration  of  his  station,  he  should  be  spared 
the  solemnities  required  by  law. 

After  some  parleying  this  portentous  document  was  delivered 
to  Villar  on  the  19th  and  on  the  27th  he  replied  at  much  length. 
He  had  never  been  told  that  he  was  under  excommunication,  or 
he  would  at  once  have  applied  for  absolution.  He  had  always 
favored  and  enriched  the  Inquisition ;  he  had  not  proceeded  against 
Dr.  Salinas  till  assured  by  Prado  that  he  could  do  so,  and  he  had 
surrendered  him  and  the  papers,  January  11,  1589,  as  soon  as 
he  was  summoned.  Then  Prado,  after  consulting  Ulloa,  had 
given  to  Fray  Pedro  de  Molina  a  commission  to  absolve  him  ad 
cautelam,  in  case  he  had  incurred  excommunication  for  that  or 
anything  else,  and  he  had  received  the  absolution  with  great 
satisfaction,  but  the  certificate  had  been  withdrawn  more  than 
a  month  ago,  and  since  then  he  had  abstained  from  hearing  mass 
or  taking  the  sacraments,  except  on  the  feast  of  San  Francisco 
(October  4th)  when  he  had  special  licence  from  the  inquisitors. 
He  did  not  know  how  he  was  to  give  satisfaction  to  Dr.  Salinas, 
as  the  matter  had  been  remitted  to  the  Suprema  which,  with 
the  king,  would  do  as  they  might  see  fit.  Meanwhile,  as  a  gentle- 
man and  an  humble  and  obedient  son  of  the  Church,  he  again 
prayed  for  absolution. 

The  victory  of  the  tribunal  and  the  humiliation  of  the  viceroy 
were  complete.  When  the  inquisitors  read  his  petition,  October 


TROUBLES  OF  VICEROYS  379 

27th,  they  issued  to  Antonio  de  Balcazar,  provisor  of  the  arch- 
diocese, a  commission  to  absolve  him,  at  the  same  time  admonish- 
ing him  to  present  himself  to  the  Suprema  as  early  as  possible. 
They  also  gave  him  the  papers  of  the  suit  brought  against  him 
by  Dr.  Salinas,  in  order  to  enable  him  to  make  his  defence  before 
the  Suprema.  Villar  received  the  absolution  with  much  humility 
and  satisfaction,  as  a  great  favor  from  the  inquisitors,  and  on  the 
28th  the  provisor  was  summoned,  who  solemnly  absolved  him  in 
the  chapel  of  the  palace.1 

Yet  Villar  was  so  little  reassured  that,  on  his  voyage  home, 
he  wrote  from  Havana  to  implore  the  protection  of  the  king  from 
the  enmity  of  Salinas.  He  rehearsed  the  services  of  his  ancestors 
to  the  monarchy,  while  of  his  children  five  sons  had  been  killed 
and  one  crippled  in  the  king's  wars  with  heretics  and  infidels, 
two  more  were  then  serving  and  two  were  in  training  for  service, 
while  two  had  died  in  the  priesthood.  His  fears  were  probably 
groundless  for  the  Suprema,  in  a  letter  to  Prado,  blamed  him  for 
the  dissensions  in  the  tribunal  which  it  attributed  to  his  favor 
for  Salinas,  a  man  of  such  evil  life  and  tortuous  methods  that  he 
alone  would  throw  any  republic  into  discord.  Apparently  it  did 
not  as  yet  know  that  the  secret  of  the  influence  of  Salinas  was 
the  relations  of  his  sister-in-law  with  Prado,  a  scandal  which 
continued  until  Prado's  recall.2 

It  has  seemed  worth  while  to  give  somewhat  in  detail  the 
particulars  of  this  obscure  quarrel  to  illustrate  the  position  adopted 
by  the  tribunal  towards  the  highest  authorities,  its  arrogant 
assumption  of  superiority,  and  the  readiness  with  which  its  juris- 
diction could  be  extended  in  any  desired  direction.  It  can  easily 
be  perceived  how  difficult  was  the  task  of  the  viceroys  to  main- 
tain an  efficient  government,  and  to  keep  the  peace  with  so 
independent  and  so  unruly  a  factor  in  the  land.  But  few  of  them 
escaped  collisions,  although  it  does  not  appear  that  in  any  sub- 
sequent case  the  quarrel  went  so  far  as  the  institution  of  a  formal 


1  Archive  national  de  Lima,  Protocolo  228,  Expte  5287  (see  Appendix). 

2  Medina,  Lima,  I,  263,  285-G,  290-2. 


380 

prosecution  against  the  personal  representative  of  the  king.  It 
is  not  surprising  therefore  that,  however  pious  were  the  viceroys, 
they  were  almost  unanimous  in  deprecating  the  acts  and  the 
influence  of  the  Holy  Office.  The  Count  del  Villar  naturally 
exhaled  his  woes  in  long  and  lugubrious  epistles  to  the  king.  His 
successor,  the  Count  of  Canete,  as  early  in  his  term  as  1589,  com- 
plained bitterly  of  the  exemptions  through  which  all  connected 
with  the  Holy  Office  admitted  responsibility  to  no  one.  This 
gave  rise  to  endless  trouble,  for  every  one  who  was  summoned 
to  have  his  accounts  examined,  or  who  refused  to  pay  his  dues 
to  the  royal  treasury,  procured  a  familiarship  or  some  office  and 
with  it  secured  exemption.  Even  Alvaro  Ruiz  de  Navamuel, 
the  government  secretary,  had  himself  made  a  familiar  and  audi- 
tor, and  assumed  that  he  was  not  subject  to  investigation.  The 
royal  officials  were  familiars — one  of  them  at  Arequipa,  when 
called  upon  for  his  accounts,  refused  because  he  was  a  familiar.1 
Government  conducted  after  this  fashion  seems  like  opera 
bouffe. 

In  like  manner  the  Viceroy  Luis  de  Velasco,  in  1604,  repre- 
sented strongly  to  Philip  III  the  intrusion  of  the  tribunal  on  other 
jurisdictions  and  its  overbearing  methods,  so  that  the  superior 
royal  officials,  on  whom  rested  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  land, 
had  to  abandon  their  rights  to  avoid  scandals.  As  for  himself, 
sometimes  he  temporized,  sometimes  he  yielded,  and  sometimes 
he  pretended  not  to  see,  in  order  to  avoid  dissension,  for,  when 
the  tribunal  was  opposed,  it  made  public  demonstrations,  which 
degraded  the  authority  of  the  vice-regal  office  and  of  the  Royal 
Audiencia.  So,  in  1609,  the  Viceroy  Marquis  of  Montesclaros, 
in  representing  some  scandalous  ill-treatment  of  the  alcaldes  of 
the  city,  declared  that  the  inquisitors  were  arbitrary  and  assumed 
that  there  was  no  power  superior  to  them  to  restrain  or  even  to 
resist  them.2  It  was  probably  representations  such  as  these  which 
led  to  the  concordias  of  1610  and  1633.  In  these  some  of  the 
more  flagrant  usurpations  of  authority  were  forbidden,  but  the 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  444.  2  Ibidem,  444,  449. 


TROUBLES  OF  VICEROYS  381 

underlying  principles  were  unchanged  and  we  have  seen  how,  in 
Mexico,  the  attempted  reform  was  frustrated. 

The  Viceroy  Count  of  Alba  de  Aliste  was  involved  in  many 
encounters  with  the  tribunal,  for  which,  as  noted  above,  in  1655, 
Philip  IV  sent  him  a  copy  of  the  circular  letter  of  1603  command- 
ing respect  and  obedience.  This  did  not  prevent  him,  in  1657, 
from  writing  that  the  reiteration  and  multiplication  of  its  excesses 
of  jurisdiction  might  render  it  necessary  for  him  to  break  with  it 
altogether,  as  the  only  way  of  maintaining  the  authority  of  the 
Government.1  With  the  advent  of  the  Bourbon  dynasty,  the 
consequent  infusion  of  Gallicanism  in  Spain,  and  the  resolute 
assertion  of  the  regalias,  the  authority  of  the  viceroj^s  was  more 
fully  recognized,  and  we  hear  less,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  of 
their  struggles  to  maintain  it  against  the  tribunal.  Yet  the  latter 
did  not  cease  to  assert  the  superiority  of  its  jurisdiction  and  to 
extend  it  as  far  as  possible,  giving  rise  to  a  perpetual  succession 
of  embittered  contests  with  the  other  judicial  organizations,  to 
the  detriment  of  the  public  peace  and  the  weakening  of  the  func- 
tions of  government.  Even  after  its  decadence  had  fairly  set  in, 
as  late  as  1773,  the  Viceroy  Manuel  Amat  y  Yunient  writes  that 
the  Inquisition,  so  necessary  for  the  purity  of  the  faith,  would  be 
more  useful  and  respected  if  it  would  confine  itself  to  its  proper 
functions,  for  its  cognizance  of  civil  cases  has  always  led  to 
collisions  with  the  royal  courts,  which  are  particularly  prejudicial 
at  this  distance  from  the  king  and,  though  there  have  been  con- 
cordias  and  royal  cedulas  to  prevent  them,  there  are  never  lacking 
occasions  to  revive  the  contention  to  the  great  disquiet  of  the 
people.2 

The  eighteenth  century,  in  fact,  presents  an  almost  continuous 
series  of  quarrels  with  all  the  different  jurisdictions,  the  existence 
of  which  so  greatly  weakened  the  organization  of  the  Spanish 
colonial  system,  and  these  quarrels  were  fought  out  with  a  per- 
sistent bitterness,  sometimes  degenerating  into  violence,  which 
taxed  to  the  utmost  the  efforts  of  the  viceroys  as  peacemakers. 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  454.  '  Memorias  de  loa  Vireyes,  IV,  487. 


382  PERU 

Into  the  trivial  details  of  these  dreary  conflicts  it  is  not  worth 
while  to  enter  at  length,  but  a  single  case  may  be  briefly  described, 
to  illustrate  the  ferocity  displayed  by  all  parties  and  the  confusion 
arising  from  the  complexity  of  the  multiplied  judicial  systems 
which  influenced  Spanish  development  so  unfortunately. 

On  November  11,  1723,  two  brothers,  the  Licentiates  Juan 
and  Martin  Lobaton,  presented  themselves  before  the  tribunal 
to  claim  its  protection.  Juan  was  cura  or  parish  priest  of  Soras 
and  commissioner  of  the  Inquisition  in  Guancabelica;  Martin 
was  cura  of  Vifiao  and  "  persona  honesta"  or  cleric  called  in  to 
be  present  when  witnesses  ratified  their  evidence.  Both  parishes 
were  in  the  see  of  Guamanga,  then  sede  vacante  and  governed  by 
the  chapter,  which  had  required  Juan  to  account  for  the  property 
of  an  Indian  woman,  a  parishioner  who  had  died  some  two  years 
previous,  and  it  had  ordered  him  not  to  leave  Guamanga,  under 
penalty  of  excommunication,  whereupon  he  had  promptly  fled 
to  Lima.  In  his  case,  the  fiscal  reported  that  the  matter  did  not 
concern  the  Inquisition  and  the  papers  were  returned  to  the 
episcopal  Ordinary.  Martin  had  assisted  his  brother's  flight 
and  for  this  he  was  confined  to  his  house  by  the  episcopal  authori- 
ties and  a  coadjutor  appointed,  to  the  great  scandal  and  destruc- 
tion, we  are  told,  of  the  parish.  In  this  case  the  tribunal  assumed 
jurisdiction;  it  ordered  him,  June  2,  1724,  to  be  restored  and  his 
property  released,  on  his  giving  security,  and  the  chapter  was 
ordered  to  prosecute  before  the  Inquisition  whatever  charges 
it  had  to  bring  against  him. 

Martin  meanwhile  had  the  town  of  Guamanga  as  a  prison. 
On  the  afternoon  of  April  30th,  as  he  was  standing  in  the  street, 
the  dean  of  the  chapter,  who  was  also  commissioner  of  the  Inquisi- 
tion, passed  in  his  carriage,  then  got  out  and  scolded  him  roundly 
for  not  taking  off  his  hat.  Martin  withdrew,  but  the  dean,  still 
unsatisfied,  went  to  his  house  with  the  alcalde,  broke  open  the 
door  and  embargoed  all  his  goods — even  to  his  clothes  and  bre- 
viary— then  summoned  the  chapter  and  by  5  o'clock  had  him 
excommunicated  and  fined  twenty  pesos,  as  the  papers  stated,  for 


CONFLICTING  JURISDICTIONS  383 

not  removing  his  hat  to  the  dean  an  hour  before,  and  notices  of 
the  excommunication  were  duly  affixed  to  the  doors  of  the 
churches. 

When  the  inquisitorial  sentence  of  June  2d  was  served  upon  the 
chapter  it  said  that  it  had  nothing  against  Martin,  but  when  hia 
embargoed  property  came  to  be  restored  much  of  it  was  found 
to  have  been  stolen  by  the  depositaries  to  whom  it  had  been 
confided.  The  tribunal  held  the  chapter  responsible  and  ordered 
the  loss  to  be  made  good,  under  threat  of  excommunication. 
The  chapter  replied,  September  29th,  that  the  case  belonged  to 
the  bishop  and  chapter  and  its  previous  surrender  of  the  papers 
had  been  without  prejudice.  Then  Fray  Luis  de  Cabrera,  prior 
of  the  Augustinian  convent,  to  whom  the  sentence  had  been  sent 
as  executor,  excommunicated  the  chapter.  The  archdeacon  as 
Commissioner  of  the  Cruzada,  .declared  the  excommunication 
void,  ordered  the  notices  to  be  removed,  and  replaced  them  with 
others  excommunicating  Cabrera  as  a  disturber  of  the  Bull  of  the 
Cruzada.  Cabrera  responded  by  excommunicating  the  alguazil 
and  notary  of  the  Cruzada  and,  on  October  2d,  the  archdeacon 
pronounced  these  excommunications  to  be  null. 

When  the  tribunal  heard  of  this,  by  orders  of  October  18th  and 
27th  it  declared  the  excommunications  on  both  sides  to  be  null; 
it  put  the  matter  of  the  chapter  in  the  hands  of  Luis  de  Mendoza, 
rector  of  the  Jesuit  college,  and  it  ordered  Cabrera  to  push  the 
restitution  of  Martin's  property,  but  not  to  employ  censures 
without  instructions.  This  was  the  situation  when  the  new 
bishop,  Alfonso  Roldan,  arrived  at  Lima  and,  on  its  being  stated 
to  him,  he  expressed  himself  as  satisfied.  Then  Martin  came 
before  the  tribunal  asserting  that  one  of  the  depositaries,  Juan 
Joseph  Lasco,  who  had  stolen  most  of  the  goods,  had  pawned 
some  silverware  of  his  with  a  merchant  named  Joseph  de  Villa- 
nueva,  and  asking  their  restoration  on  his  proving  property. 
Consequently  on  March  14,  1725,  orders  were  sent  to  Cabrera 
that,  if  the  silver  were  proved  to  be  Martin's,  it  should  be  deposited 
in  safe  hands.  This  was  done  on  April  5th,  when  Villanueva 


384  PERU 

deposed  that  Lasco  had  pawned  with  him  ninety-three  marks 
of  silver  plate.  He  was  ordered  to  deposit  it  and  promised  to 
do  so  but,  on  the  7th,  he  testified  that  the  day  before  the  bishop 
had  ordered  him  not  to  surrender  the  silver  but  to  tell  Cabrera 
to  throw  up  the  commission  of  the  Inquisition  and  any  other  that 
he  might  hold.  This  was  followed  by  the  archdeacon  notifying 
Martin  to  go  to  his  parish  in  sixteen  hours  and,  on  his  representing 
the  impossibility  of  this,  as  he  had  been  a  prisoner  for  a  year  and 
was  deprived  of  his  property,  he  was  posted  as  an  excommuni- 
cate. After  considerable  delay  he  was  absolved  and  was  told 
to  stay  in  the  city,  but  on  falling  sick  and  unable  to  assist  in 
the  church,  he  was  excommunicated  again  and  recluded  in  his 
house. 

All  this  is  a  one-sided  relation,  furnished  by  the  tribunal  to 
the  Suprema.  It  evidently  omits  much  that  would  show  the 
tribunal  in  a  less  favorable  light,  as  the  outcome  indicates,  for  in 
it  there  is  nothing  to  justify  the  intervention  of  the  viceroy  and 
Audiencia.  Yet  we  learn  from  another  source  that  Cabrera  had 
arbitrarily  excommunicated  and  fined  the  alcalde  of  Guamanga 
who  complained  to  the  Audiencia,  and  on  October  30,  1724,  the 
viceroy  notified  the  tribunal  that  the  Audiencia,  after  considering 
the  evidence,  had  resolved  that  the  Inquisition  should  restrain 
its  officials.  A  correspondence  ensued,  continued  until  the  sum- 
mer of  1725,  in  which  the  tribunal  complained  that  the  viceroy 
and  Audiencia  were  assuming  to  be  the  superiors  of  the  Inqui- 
sition, in  violation  of  the  laws  and  the  royal  cedulas.  The  affair 
finally  took  the  shape  of  a  competencia  referred  for  settlement  to 
the  Suprema  and  the  Council  of  Indies.  The  Suprema  took 
high  ground;  it  alone  could  review  the  acts  of  the  tribunal  or 
entertain  appeals,  and  no  other  authority  had  power  to  intervene. 
This  might  have  answered  under  Philip  IV,  but  times  had  changed. 
A  decree  of  Philip  V,  February  1, 1729,  ordered  it  to  correct  the 
excesses  of  the  tribunal  by  such  means  as  it  deemed  requisite, 
and  to  this  it  replied,  April  16th,  that  it  had  revoked  the  acts  of 
the  tribunal  in  the  affair  of  Martin  Lobaton,  ordering  the  sur- 


CONFLICTING  JURISDICTIONS  385 

render  of  all  papers  to  the  Ordinary  and  judge  of  Cruzada  before 
whom  he  must  plead;  that  it  had  entirely  disapproved  the  pro- 
ceedings of  the  tribunal  and  that  it  had  instructed  the  inquisitors 
hereafter  to  observe  the  provisions  of  the  law.1 

The  Cruzada  jurisdiction  which  emerges  in  this  case  was  another 
of  the  subdivisions  of  judicial  authority,  which  so  fatally  com- 
plicated the  administration  of  justice  in  the  Spanish  dominions 
and  furnished  an  abundant  source  of  quarrels.  The  indulgence 
known  as  the  Santa  Cruzada  supplied  a  large  revenue  to  the  crown 
and  the  organization  for  its  sale  was  elaborate.  At  its  head  was 
a  chief  commissioner  who  held  exclusive  jurisdiction,  civil  and 
criminal,  over  his  subordinates  and,  although  this  was  by  law 
confined  to  their  official  acts,  yet  it  was,  as  we  have  just  seen, 
extended  to  protect  them  in  every  way.2  While  the  case  just 
mentioned  was  in  progress,  another  prolonged  quarrel  arose, 
similarly  involving  all  three  jurisdictions.  Don  Antonio  de  Mar- 
categui,  the  priest  of  Quiquixana,  was  also  a  commissioner  of  the 
Inquisition.  As  such  he  was  already  engaged  in  a  contest  with 
the  episcopal  provisor  of  Cuzco,  in  which  the  Supre-ma  decided 
against  him  and  ordered  all  his  acts  to  be  revoked.  While  this 
was  pending  he  celebrated  mass  in  the  chapter's  chapel  of  the 
Virgin,  on  a  feast-day,  without  first  settling  with  the  Cruzada  for 
the  indulgences  gained  there  by  the  worshippers  under  some  old 
concessions.  For  this  Don  Juan  de  Ugarte,  commissioner  of 
the  Cruzada  in  Cuzco,  on  January  8,  1724,  notified  him  that  he 
was  fined  in  three  hundred  pesos,  and  also  excommunicated  him 
without  trial.  Marcategui  went  to  Cuzco  and  laid  the  matter 
before  Bishop  Arregui,  who  sided  with  Ugarte.  After  some 
further  trouble  the  corregidor  was  sent  to  arrest  him  and  seques- 
trate his  property;  he  gathered  together  some  Indians  and  Span- 
iards for  resistance  but  thought  better  of  it  and  escaped  to  Lima 
when,  on  appealing  to  the  Inquisition,  it  declared  all  the  pro- 

1  Bibl.  nacional  de  Madrid,  Section  de  MSS.,  R,  102,  fol.  169.— Archive  de 
Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  27,  fol.  90,  106. — Memorias  de  los  Vireyes,  III,  85. 
*  Nueva  Recopilacion,  Lib.  I,  Tit.  x,  ley  10,  n.  5. 
25 


386  PERU 

ceedings  to  be  invalid  and  ordered  the  surrender  to  it  of  all  the 
papers.  The  bishop  however  sent  his  papers  to  the  viceroy  and 
Ugarte  his  to  the  Cruzada  tribunal  of  Lima.  The  inquisitors 
demanded  the  former  from  the  viceroy  and  asked  him  to  compel 
the  Cruzada  to  surrender  the  latter,  but  the  viceroy  refused, 
alleging  that  what  he  held  concerned  the  royal  patronato  and  that 
he  had  no  control  over  the  Cruzada,  whose  jurisdiction  was  eccle- 
siastical, exempt  and  privileged.  To  a  second  demand,  he 
expressed  the  wise  determination  not  to  get  entangled  in  eccle- 
siastical matters  and  jurisdictions,  and  he  further  claimed  cog- 
nizance of  the  case  of  the  corregidor,  whom  the  Inquisition  was 
prosecuting  for  sequestrating  Marcategui's  property  and  attempt- 
ing his  arrest.  He  stubbornly  rejected  repeated  requests  and 
he  finally  ordered  the  tribunal  to  suspend  its  summons  to  Ugarte 
to  appear  before  it.  The  case  was  carried  to  Spain  to  vex  the 
souls  of  the  Suprema,  the  Council  of  Indies  and  the  Commissioner 
of  the  Cruzada.  In  1729  the  king  decided  against  the  Inquisition 
and  ordered  the  case  to  be  surrendered  to  the  Cruzada  and  the 
episcopal  court,  but  it  still  dragged  on  and,  in  1733,  a  royal  decree 
ordered  the  Inquisition  to  obey  the  Concordias  and  the  laws,  but 
even  this  was  not  the  end,  how  it  was  finally  settled  matters 
little;  its  only  interest  lies  in  illustrating  the  hopelessly  imprac- 
ticable character  of  Spanish  colonial  organization  and  adminis- 
tration.1 

These  defeats  of  the  Inquisition  were  followed  soon  afterwards 
by  a  still  greater  invasion  of  the  privileges  of  the  inquisitorial 
employees.  A  citizen  of  Lima  pursued  a  slave  into  the  house  of 
a  salaried  official,  whereupon  the  tribunal  forthwith  ordered  his 
arrest.  The  royal  Audiencia  intervened,  representing  to  the 
viceroy,  the  Marquis  of  Castel-Fuerte,  that  the  officials  enjoyed 
only  the  passive  and  not  the  active  fuero;  that  the  pretensions  of 
the  Inquisition,  if  admitted,  would  destroy  the  royal  jurisdiction, 
and  that  an  order  should  be  issued  requiring  the  aggrieved  party 

1  Bibl.  national  de  Madrid,  MSS.,  R,  102.— MSS.  of  Archive  national  de  Lima, 
Legajo  225,  Expediente  5278.— Memoriae  de  los  Vireyes  del  Peru,  III,  86-93. 


EXEMPTIONS  ABOLISHED  387 

to  plead  in  the  Audiencia.  This  opinion  the  viceroy  sent  to  the 
tribunal  with  a  request  that  it  should  abstain.  It  replied  that 
the  official  had  withdrawn  his  complaint  on  account  of  the  apolo- 
gies made  to  him,  but  that  the  tribunal  could  not  assent  to  the 
position  of  the  Audiencia  without  committing  the  grave  fault  of 
crippling  its  powers.  A  considerable  correspondence  ensued  in 
which  the  Audiencia  asserted  decisively  that,  in  matters  not 
connected  with  faith,  the  officials  of  the  Inquisition  did  not  enjoy 
the  f uero  and  much  less  the  active  f uero ;  that  there  were  no  laws 
or  customs  to  contravene  the  settled  principle  that  the  plaintiff 
or  prosecutor  must  seek  the  court  of  the  defendant.  To  this  the 
tribunal  replied  that  the  Audiencia  had  no  authority  to  frame 
general  rules  in  contravention  of  laws  and  customs,  and  that 
the  matter  must  be  settled  by  the  Suprema.  Castel-Fuerte 
rejoined  that  the  competence  of  the  royal  court  was  not  to  be 
impugned,  that  the  Suprema  had  cognizance  only  of  matters  of 
faith  and  that  to  admit  the  contrary  was  to  place  the  whole 
administration  of  justice  at  the  mercy  of  the  tribunal.1 

These  were  brave  words  which  a  century  earlier  would  have 
consigned  the  utterer  to  disgrace.  They  were  the  denial  of  the 
privileges  and  exemptions  which  the  Inquisition  had  enjoyed  for 
nearly  two  centuries  and  a  half,  and  their  significance  lies  in 
their  expression  of  the  tendencies  of  the  period.  In  time  those 
tendencies  brought  about  their  inevitable  development.  In  1744 
there  was  a  contest  over  the  will  of  D.  Felix  Antonio  de  Vargas, 
in  the  consulado  or  commercial  court.  A  secretary  of  the  tri- 
bunal claimed  to  have  an  interest  in  the  estate,  and  it  consequently 
asserted  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  affair.  This  was  resisted 
by  the  consulado,  and  Viceroy  Villagarcia  ordered  a  sola  de  com- 
petencia  to  decide  between  the  conflicting  claims,  according  to 
established  rule.  The  tribunal  refused,  on  the  ground  that  its 
rights  were  too  clear  to  be  called  in  question.  While  this  was 
pending,  Superunda  succeeded  to  Villagarcia  and,  after  no  little 
trouble,  he  induced  the  visitador  Arenaza  to  agree  to  a  sala 

1  Memorias  de  los  Vireyes,  III,  94-100. 


388  PERU 

reflexdj  to  determine  whether  a  sala  de  competencia  should  be  held. 
Then  there  came  fresh  trouble  on  the  side  of  the  senior  judge  of 
the  Consulado,  but  finally  the  decision  was  reached  that  the 
officials  of  the  Inquisition  were  entitled  to  the  active  f uero.  When 
Superunda  reported  the  matter  to  Fernando  VI  there  resulted 
the  royal  ce*dula  of  June  20, 1751,  declaring  that  the  officials  should 
enjoy  only  the  passive  fuero,  and  this  in  both  civil  cases  and 
those  criminal  ones  not  excepted  by  the  concordias,  while  their 
servants  and  the  familiars  were  wholly  deprived  of  it.  In  the 
case  in  question,  the  papers  were  to  be  surrendered  to  the  Con- 
sulado; in  future  no  sala  reflexa  was  to  be  held  and,  when  the 
matter  was  so  clear  as  in  this  one,  the  viceroy  should  decide  it, 
as  the  effort  was  manifestly  an  assault  on  the  regalias. 

By  this  time  Arenaza  had  departed  and  the  inquisitors  were 
Amusquibar  and  Rodriguez.  The  latter  was  disposed  to  accept 
the  royal  c£dula  without  dispute,  but  Amusquibar  refused  to 
obey  it  on  the  ground  that  it  had  not  come  with  the  confirmation 
of  the  Suprema.  A  long  wrangle  ensued,  but  at  length  another 
cedula  of  February  29, 1760,  was  received,  ordering  the  observance 
of  the  previous  one,  and  this  time  it  was  accompanied  by  a  cor- 
responding decree  of  the  Suprema.  These  were  communicated 
to  the  tribunal,  March  24,  1761,  which,  seeing  that  further 
resistance  was  useless,  promptly  promised  obedience.  This  was 
followed  by  a  demand  for  the  papers  of  the  estate  of  Vargas,  which, 
after  an  interval  of  seventeen  years,  was  at  length  placed  in  train 
for  adjudication.1 

This  settled  the  question  as  to  the  civil  jurisdiction  of  the 
tribunal  and  simultaneously  another  case  put  an  end  to  conflicts 
over  criminal  matters.  A  negro  slave  of  the  alguazil  mayor  had 
been  arrested  for  some  offence;  the  tribunal  demanded  the  prisoner 
with  its  customary  threats  of  fines  and  excommunications.  The 
affair  was  pending  when  the  ce*dula  of  1760  was  received;  the 
Audiencia  thereupon  served  on  the  tribunal  an  inhibition  to 
issue  letters  of  excommunication  and  fine  against  the  alcaldes  del 

1  Memorias  de  los  Vireyes,  IV,  73-6,  300. 


QUARRELS  WITH  THE  ARCHBISHOP  339 

crimen  and  proceeded  to  try  the  slave.  The  cedula  was  sent  to 
all  the  judicial  officers  of  the  vice-royalty  and  they  were  ordered 
to  defend  the  royal  jurisdiction  in  all  cases  covered  by  it.  To 
the  arrogant  temper  of  Amusquibar  this  limitation  of  the  tra- 
ditional jurisdiction  of  the  Inquisition  must  have  been  gall  and 
wormwood,  but  it  was  worth  much  to  the  peace  of  the  land. 
In  1796,  the  Viceroy,  Frey  Francisco  Gil  de  Taboado  y  Lemos, 
tells  us  that  it  had  put  an  end  to  the  former  conflicts  between 
the  jurisdictions.1 

We  have  seen  how  neglectful  was  Amusquibar  of  the  real  duties 
of  his  office,  but  he  found  time  and  energy  to  keep  Barroeta  y 
Angel,  the  Archbishop  of  Lima,  in  a  condition  of  exasperation 
for  years,  and  in  this  he  seems  to  have  had  the  support  not  only  of 
the  Suprema  but  of  Fernando  VI.  What  was  the  origin  of  the 
dissension  between  them  does  not  appear,  but  Barroeta  lost 
no  opportunity  of  exercising  his  authority  for  Amusquibar's 
annoyauce  and  always  to  his  own  discomfiture.  The  rupture 
must  already  have  been  pronounced  when,  October  4,  1752, 
Barroeta  wrote  calling  his  attention  to  the  fact  that  his  licence 
as  confessor  had  not  been  renewed,  while  in  spite  of  this  he  con- 
tinued his  visits  to  the  nunneries  of  the  Recollects,  which  was 
unfitting  his  position  and  was  prohibited;  his  ceasing  these  visits 
would  relieve  the  Archbishop  from  further  proceedings.  This 
sharp  provocation  was  disarmed  by  cool  insolence.  Amus- 
quibar delayed  a  reply  until  November  14th,  when  he  simply 
said  that  he  had  postponed  acknowledging  the  note  in  order  to 
be  temperate,  and  he  now  omitted  answering  it  in  order  not  to 
fail  in  the  respect  due  to  his  own  office  and  the  dignity  of  the 
archbishop.  Barroeta  transmitted  the  correspondence  to  the 
Suprema  for  redress  and  obtained  none.  Amusquibar,  however, 
ceased  his  visits  but  kept  up  a  correspondence.  So  it  was,  in 
1756,  when  Barroeta  called  upon  Amusquibar  and  Rodriguez 
for  a  statement  of  settlements  with  creditors  and  sales  of  farms 
belonging  to  chaplaincies,  in  order  that  he  might  see  that  the 

1  Memorias  de  los  Vireyes,  IV,  300-2;  V,  50. 


390 

souls  of  the  founders  were  reaping  the  benefits  designed  in  the 
foundations.  The  inquisitors  replied  that  it  was  impossible  and, 
on  his  asking  why,  replied  that  it  was  on  account  of  the  mode  of 
his  demand;  the  archbishop  could  send  his  fiscal  and  any  special 
question  about  any  special  foundation  would  be  answered.  Again 
he  forwarded  the  letters  to  the  Suprema  but  its  only  action  was 
to  file  them  away.  He  had  equal  ill-luck  in  all  the  questions 
that  he  raised.  In  1751  the  Suprema  sent  to  Amusquibar  its 
approval  and  that  of  the  king,  as  to  his  conduct  in  an  encounter 
with  Barroeta  over  jubilee  faculties  for  absolving  for  heresy. 
Then  Barroeta  claimed  that  the  inquisitors  should  submit  to 
him  their  licences  to  celebrate  and  hear  confessions,  but  the  king 
decided  against  him.  Barroeta  transferred  the  delegation  of  his 
inquisitorial  jurisdiction  from  his  Ordinary  to  another  person; 
the  tribunal  disputed  it  and  the  king  decided  in  its  favor.  He 
undertook  to  deprive  the  inquisitors  of  their  faculties  as  confessors, 
and  only  provoked  fresh  rebukes  from  Spain.  He  issued  an  edict 
on  fasting  which  the  tribunal  prohibited;  then  he  printed  it  at 
the  end  of  his  Synodal  Constitutions  only  to  have  the  prohibition 
confirmed  and  the  decision  approved  by  the  Suprema.  There 
was  a  question  about  the  notary  of  the  episcopal  court  going  to 
the  tribunal  to  report  certain  acts,  in  which  the  Suprema  sustained 
its  action,  and  the  visits  of  ceremony  between  them  was  a  fruitful 
source  of  controversy.1  Barroeta  died,  December  10,  1757, 
his  whole  episcopate  marred  with  these  little  squabbles.  It  is 
all  very  petty,  but  it  illustrates  how  the  relations  of  the  Inqui- 
sition with  the  spiritual  authorities  were  as  unfriendly  as  with 
the  temporal. 

Thus  far  we  have  considered  the  activity  of  the  tribunal  in 
matters  foreign  to  its  original  purpose,  which,  indeed,  were  the 
most  important  portion  of  its  record.  As  regards  its  proper 
function,  that  of  maintaining  the  purity  of  the  faith,  its  chief 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Sala  39,  Legajo  52. — Archive  national  de 
Lima,  Protocolo  225,  Expedt*  5278. 


BIGAMY,  BLASPHEMY,  SORCERY  391 

business  in  Peru,  as  in  Spain,  was  with  a  class  of  cases  which  could 
only  by  forced  construction  be  considered  as  heretical.  Biga- 
mists furnished  a  large  proportion  of  penitents — the  adventurer 
who  left  a  wife  in  Andalusian  Cordoba  was  apt  to  take  a  new  one 
in  Cordova  de  Tucuman  and  chance  might  at  any  time  bring 
detection,  while,  even  in  Peru  itself,  distances  were  so  great  and 
intercommunication  so  difficult,  that  the  seeker  after  fortune  was 
easily  tempted  in  his  wanderings  to  duplicate  the  sacrament 
of  matrimony.  Blasphemy  was  another  prolific  source  of  pro- 
secution, for  the  gambling  habit  was  universal  and  lost  none  of 
its  provocative  character  in  crossing  the  ocean.  Sorcery  more- 
over, including  the  innumerable  superstitions  for  creating  love 
or  hatred,  curing  or  causing  disease,  bringing  fortune  or  averting 
misfortune,  and  foretelling  the  future,  which  were  technically 
held  to  include  implicit  or  explicit  pact  with  the  demon,  brought 
an  ample  store  of  culprits  before  the  tribunal.  To  the  mass  of 
superstitious  beliefs  carried  from  home  by  the  Spaniards  were 
speedily  superadded  those  of  the  native  wise-women  and  a  sprink- 
ling taught  by  Guinea  negro  slaves.  We  find  but  few  whites 
among  these  offenders,  but  every  other  caste  is  represented — 
negro,  mulatto,  quadroon,  mestizo  and  sambo  and  sometimes 
Indian,  for  in  this  crime  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Inquisition  over 
the  Indians  seems  to  have  been  admitted.  One  feature  of  Indian 
sorcery  which  constantly  meets  us  is  the  use  of  the  drug  coca, 
owing  to  the  marvellous  properties  attributed  to  it,  akin  to  the 
peyote  which,  in  Mexico,  was  employed  to  produce  fatidical  dreams 
and  revelations.  Both  of  these  were  strictly  prohibited  by  the 
respective  Inquisitions.1 

No  specific  cases  of  witchcraft  occur  in  the  autos  de  fe,  but, 
in  1629,  a  special  Edict  of  Faith  directed  against  the  occult  arts 
and  sorcery  was  published,  enumerating  all  the  forbidden  prac- 
tices in  minute  detail  and  forming  a  curious  body  of  superstitions 


1  For  the  large  part  played  in  South  American  sorcery  by  coca  see  Granada, 
Resefta  de  antiguas  y  modernas  Supersticiones  del  Rio  de  la  Plata,  pp.  26,  30,  201, 
208-9,  498,  501,  578  (Montevideo,  1896). 


392  PERU 

and  folk-lore,  much  more  extensive  than  anything  of  the  kind 
issued  in  Spain.  It  brought  in,  we  are  told,  numerous  denuncia- 
tions, but  the  practices  were  ineradicable  and  continued  to  flourish 
until  the  end.  The  virtual  paralysis  of  the  tribunal  in  the  later 
years  of  Amusqufbar  caused  many  complaints,  among  which 
was  one  from  C6rdova  de  Tucuman  to  the  Suprema,  representing 
that,  in  the  interior  provinces,  sorcery  was  universal;  there  was 
no  case  of  sickness  that  was  not  attributed  to  it,  but  denunciations 
and  testimony  sent  to  the  tribunal  received  no  attention  and,  as 
the  civil  magistrates  were  precluded  from  acting,  it  flourished 
unrepressed.1 

Propositions,  which  furnished  so  large  a  portion  of  the  work 
of  the  Spanish  tribunals,  afforded  a  much  smaller  percentage 
in  Peru.  This  is  probably  attributable  to  lack  of  intellectual 
activity,  for  some  of  the  cases  tried  indicate  that  the  suscepti- 
bility of  the  Inquisition  was  as  delicate  as  in  Spain,  and  that 
there  was  the  same  readiness  to  denounce  any  careless  speech 
or  ill-sounding  remark  uttered  in  vexation  or  anger.  Thus,  in 
1592,  Felipe  de  Lujan  was  tried  because,  when  looking  at  a  pic- 
ture of  the  Last  Judgement,  he  said  it  was  not  well  painted,  for 
Christ  was  not  with  the  Apostles.  Juan  de  Arianza  had  the 
indelible  disgrace  of  appearing  in  the  auto  of  February  27,  1631, 
because,  when  reading  the  Scriptures,  he  exclaimed  "Ea!  there 
is  nothing  but  living  and  dying,"  which  sounded  ill  to  those  who 
heard  it.  A  case,  which  came  near  to  ending  in  tragedy,  was  that 
of  Antonio  de  Campos  who,  for  uttering  certain  heretical  propo- 
sitions and  adhering  to  them  pertinaciously,  was  condemned  to 
relaxation.  Fortunately  for  him  the  expense  of  a  public  auto 
was  too  great  to  be  incurred  for  him  and  the  Suprema  was  con- 
sulted, in  1672.  During  the  delay  thus  caused  it  was  found  that 
his  real  name  was  Fray  Teodoro  de  Ribera  and  that  his  brain 
had  been  turned  by  a  potion  given  to  him  by  a  woman.  This 
afforded  a  solution  and  he  was  handed  over  as  insane  to  his  Pro- 
vincial. A  case  in  1721  is  noteworthy  as  illustrating  the  dangers 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II.  35-41,  357 


SOLICITATION  393 

which  environed  all  speculations  connected  with  the  Church. 
A  Frenchman,  known  as  Juan  de  Ullos,  was  denounced  for  saying 
that  neither  the  pope  nor  a  general  council  was  the  head  of  the 
Church.  In  due  course  this  proposition  was  submitted  to  two 
calificadores,  Padre  Luis  de  Andrade,  S.  J.,  and  the  Mercenarian 
Fray  Francisco  Galiano.  It  was  probably  through  some  vague 
reference  to  Gallicanism  that  they  reported  that  the  qualification 
was  difficult  because  the  accused  was  a  Frenchman,  and  for  this 
tliey  were  imprisoned,  with  sequestration  of  their  property.1 

As  we  have  already  seen  in  Mexico  (p.  241),  one  of  the  most 
frequent  offences,  not  strictly  heretical,  with  which  the  Inqui- 
sition had  to  deal,  was  that  of  so-called  solicitation — the  seduc- 
tion of  women  by  priests  in  the  confessional,  but  as  these  offenders 
never  appear  in  the  relations  of  the  autos,  they  are  only  to  be 
gathered  from  more  or  less  imperfect  records.  Prior  to  1578 
there  had  been  various  cases,  about  one  of  which,  that  of  Antonio 
Hernandez  de  Villaroel,  the  tribunal  reported  that  it  could  not 
diminish  the  penalty  of  perpetual  deprivation  of  confessing 
women,  because  this  had  been  ordered  by  the  Suprema  in  the 
case  of  Rodrigo  de  Arcos,  and  this  was  construed  as  a  general 
law.  If  so,  it  was  not  long  in  force  for,  about  1580,  we  find  Juan 
de  Alarcon  deprived  for  only  three  years.  In  a  collection  of  cases 
between  1578  and  1581  there  are  seven  of  solicitation  and  between 
1581  and  1585  there  are  eight.  Thus  they  are  constantly  appear- 
ing and,  in  1595,  we  are  told  that  there  were  twenty-four  priests 
in  prison  awaiting  sentence,  one  of  whom,  Juan  de  Figueroa,  was 
testified  against  by  forty-three  women.  In  1597  seven  priests 
were  prosecuted  from  the  province  of  Tucuman  alone,  where, 
among  the  Indian  converts,  few  confessors  seem  to  have  had 
scruples.2 

In  view  of  the  heinousness  of  the  offence  the  treatment  of  cul- 
prits in  Spain  was  remarkably  lenient,  but  this  was  surpassed  by 
the  tenderness  shown  to  them  in  Peru.  Another  fraile  from 


1  Medina,  La  Plata,  pp.  129-37;  Lima,  I,  311;  II,  45,  225,  273. 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  139,  147,  188-95;  La  Plata,  122.— Palma,  Afiales,  p.  51. 


394  PERU 

Tucuman,  the  Dominican  Francisco  Vdzquez,  was  sentenced,  in 
1599,  for  this  and  for  twenty-four  scandalous  propositions,  but 
for  this  cumulation  of  offences  he  escaped  with  deprivation  of 
confessing  women  and  reclusion  for  a  year  in  a  convent.  At 
the  same  time  the  Franciscan  Bartolome"  de  la  Cruz,  Guardian  of 
the  convent  at  Santiago  de  Estero,  against  whom  fifteen  women 
testified,  was  deprived  of  confessing  and  had  some  spiritual 
penances.  Fray  Andres  Corral,  Guardian  of  the  convent  at  las 
Juntas,  testified  against  by  twenty-eight  women,  had  aggravated 
the  offence  by  committing  rape  in  the  church  and  for  this  he  was 
banished  from  Tucuman  and  subjected  to  a  discipline.  On  the 
other  hand  Rodrigo  Ortiz  Melgarejo,  the  only  priest  in  Asuncion, 
denounced  himself  to  the  commissioner  in  1594,  to  the  delegate 
in  Asuncion  and  to  the  tribunal  in  1596,  for  guilt  with  seven 
women.  He  was  obliged  to  go  to  Lima,  where  he  presented  him- 
self in  1600.  He  was  regarded  as  excessively  scrupulous,  he  had 
performed  a  journey  of  over  a  thousand  miles  and  this  seems  to 
have  been  thought  an  ample  punishment.  The  fact  that  there 
was  no  evidence  against  him  shows  that  the  commissioner  and  his 
delegate  regarded  the  matter  as  too  trivial  to  gather  testimony 
about  it.1 

In  some  of  these  cases  the  customary  reading  of  the  sentences 
before  colleagues  of  the  culprits  was  omitted  because,  as  the 
tribunal  explained,  there  were  so  many  of  them  of  various  Orders 
that  the  omission  seemed  best  to  spare  the  honor  of  the  religious 
bodies;  the  character  of  the  Indian  female  witnesses  was  doubtful, 
but  experience  showed  that  they  spoke  truth,  for  most  of  the 
accused  confessed  and  this  was  confirmed  by  the  evil  lives  and 
example  of  all  the  frailes  summoned  from  Tucuman.  This  had 
led  the  tribunal  to  deprive  them  perpetually  of  confessing  women, 
even  when  the  witnesses  were  Indians  and  few  in  number,  espe- 
cially as  all  those  priests  and  frailes  were  very  ignorant  and 
profligate.2 

Inquisitor  Ordonez,  as  we  have  seen,  was  not  especially  sensitive 

1  Medina,  La  Plata,  pp.  122-5.  2  Ibidem,  pp.  125-6. 


SOLICITATION  395 

or  straight-laced,  but  he  felt  compelled,  in  a  letter  of  April  20,  1599, 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  Suprema  to  the  frequency  of  solici- 
tation, especially  in  Tucuman,  where,  as  he  said,  it  appeared  that 
there  was  scarce  a  priest  not  guilty  of  it,  and  the  worst  feature  was 
that  some  of  them  told  the  Indian  women  that  the  sin  was  no 
sin  when  committed  with  them,  and  it  was  consummated  in  the 
churches.  He  therefore  asked  authority  to  increase  the  punish- 
ment indicated  in  the  Instructions  and  the  Suprema  accordingly 
gave  permission  to  add  service  in  the  galleys — a  permission, 
however,  of  which  the  tribunal  seems  never  to  have  availed  itself. 
So  far  from  there  being  an  improvement,  the  tribunal  was  led  to 
issue,  in  1630,  a  special  edict  to  the  effect  that,  notwithstanding 
the  clauses  in  the  annual  Edict  of  Faith,  the  crime  continued  to 
prevail;  that  confessors  ignored  that  it  was  strictly  reserved  to 
the  Inquisition,  and  absolved  the  guilty  as  well  as  the  penitents, 
without  requiring  the  latter  to  denounce  their  seducers  as  pre- 
scribed by  the  papal  decrees;  further,  that  learned  persons  when 
consulted  furnished  opinions  that  these  cases  did  not  come  within 
inquisitorial  jurisdiction;  wherefore  all  persons  were  required, 
within  six  days  after  notice,  to  denounce  these  offenders  under 
pain  of  excommunication  latce  sententice.1 

It  was  all  in  vain  and  solicitation  continued  until  the  end  to 
furnish  a  notable  portion  of  the  dwindling  business  of  the  tribunal. 
As  late  as  1806  the  fiscal  Sobrino  reported  to  the  Suprema  that 
the  worst  criminals  were  to  be  found  in  the  vice-royalty  of  Buenos 
Ayres,  which  was  hastening  to  its  ruin,  especially  through  irre- 
ligious propositions  and  solicitation.  Possibly  wholesome  severity 
might  have  placed  some  check  on  the  persistency  of  the  crime, 
but  the  same  inexplicable  tenderness  continued  to  be  shown  to 
culprits.  In  1737,  Pedro  de  Zubieta,  canon  of  Lima,  denounced 
himself  for  soliciting  Dona  Lorenza  de  Fuentes,  a  nun  in  the 
convent  of  la  Concepcion — a  confession  which  she  confirmed  to 
some  extent.  Then  Sor  Eugenia  Evangelista,  of  the  convent  del 
Prado,  denounced  him  with  details  of  the  filthiest  and  most  cor- 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  313;  II,  474-8. 


396  PERU 

rupting  talk.  As,  however,  he  was  a  person  of  consideration, 
the  tribunal,  before  taking  action,  consulted  the  Suprema,  with 
the  result  that,  in  1743,  he  was  merely  reprimanded  and  advised 
to  give  up  hearing  confessions.  Almost  equal  leniency  was  shown, 
in  1793,  to  the  priest  Fermin  de  Aguirre,  whose  sentence  was 
read  in  the  presence  of  twelve  priests,  when  he  abjured  de  levi 
and  had  some  spiritual  penances.1 

More  nearly  akin  to  the  real  business  of  the  Inquisition  was 
its  dealing  with  the  class  known  as  beatas  revelanderas — women 
professing  a  holy  life,  specially  favored  by  heaven  with  trances, 
revelations  and  visions,  and  gifted  with  spiritual  attributes  and 
powers.  Popular  superstition  rendered  this  a  profitable  trade 
in  Spain,  where  the  Holy  Office  was  perpetually  engaged  in  expos- 
ing and  punishing  their  impostures;  Peru  was  equally  afflicted; 
indeed,  the  boldness  and  grossness  of  their  demands  upon  the 
credulity  of  the  people  exceeded  even  that  displayed  in  the 
mother  country. 

Almost  the  first  occupation  of  the  new  tribunal  was  a  case  of  this 
kind.  About  1568,  in  Lima,  a  young  endemoniada,  named  Maria 
Pizarro,  had  visitations  from  the  angel  Gabriel,  in  which  many 
things  were  revealed  to  her,  including  the  Immaculate  Conception. 
She  was  exorcised  by  numerous  frailes,  who  accepted  these  revela- 
tions and  carried  them  out  to  their  ultimate  conclusions.  Con- 
spicuous among  these  were  the  Padres  Luis  L6pez  and  Geronimo 
Ruiz  Portillo,  two  of  the  three  Jesuits  selected  by  S.  Francisco  de 
Borja  as  the  first  missionaries  of  the  Society  sent  to  Peru,  where 
they  were  received  as  angels  of  light.  There  were  also  several 
Dominicans — Fray  Francisco  de  la  Cruz,  professor  of  theology 
and  a  man  of  such  high  repute  that  the  Archbishop  of  Lima 
had  proposed  him  as  coadjutor — Fray  Pedro  de  Toro,  Fray 
Alonso  Gasco,  prior  of  the  convent  of  Quito,  and  others  of  minor 
importance.  Early  in  1571  Gasco  denounced  himself  to  the 
Bishop  of  Quito  and  surrendered  sundry  objects  which  had  been 

1  Medina,  La  Plata,  p.  266;  Lima,  II,  307,  381. 


MYSTIC  IMPOSTORS  397 

blessed  by  the  demon,  among  them  a  copy-book  of  blank  paper, 
two  pens  and  a  cloth.  The  paper  had  the  faculty  that  whatever 
was  written  on  it  was  true,  even  in  doubtful  matters,  and  the 
cloth  was  a  cure  for  disease.  The  bishop  sent  Gasco  to  the  tri- 
bunal, where  he  was  imprisoned,  May  8,  1572;  the  others  and 
Maria  Pizarro  were  arrested  at  different  times. 

None  of  them  seem  to  have  denied  their  belief  in  the  revelations. 
Marfa  fell  sick,  after  making  a  full  confession,  in  which  she  accused 
herself  of  having  served  as  a  succubus  to  the  demon,  and  Padre 
Luis  Lopez  of  having  corrupted  her,  of  which  she  gave  full  details. 
She  was  several  times  thought  to  be  dying,  when  her  confessions 
were  read  over  to  her,  which  she  altered  several  times,  finally 
disculpating  Lopez  and  asserting  herself  to  be  a  virgin — all  of 
which  was  disproved.  She  died,  December  11,  1573,  and  was 
secretly  interred  in  the  convent  of  la  Merced. 

The  most  conspicuous  figure  in  the  affair  was  Francisco  de  la 
Cruz;  he  stoutly  maintained  his  belief  that  the  revelations  came 
from  the  angel,  and  he  persistently  asserted  the  doctrines  deduced 
from  them.  The  calificadores  pronounced  them  to  be  heretical 
in  the  highest  degree  and  him  to  be  a  heretic  more  dangerous  than 
Luther,  for  under  his  teachings  priests  would  be  permitted  to 
marry,  laymen  to  practise  polygamy,  confession  would  be  abol- 
ished and  excommunication  be  disregarded,  duels  be  allowed 
and  soldiers  permitted  to  enslave  the  Indians.  Such  a  man 
teaching  such  principles  could  cause  a  revolution  and  overthrow 
the  Spanish  sovereignty.  Moreover,  by  Dona  Leonor  de  Valen- 
zuela,  a  married  woman,  he  had  a  child  named  Gravelico  who 
was  to  be  another  Job  and  John  the  Baptist;  he  was  now  begin- 
ning to  talk  and  to  say  that  God  was  his  father  and  the  Virgin 
his  mother.  He  was  too  dangerous  an  imp  to  be  at  large;  the 
tribunal  prudently  seized  him,  secretly  shipped  him  to  Panama" 
and  had  him  forwarded  to  Trujillo  and  placed  with  Don  Juan  de 
Sandoval.  The  fraile  himself  on  trial  was  stubbornly  pertina- 
cious; his  advocate  and  a  patron  theoldgico  abandoned  his  defence, 
whereat  he  expressed  his  satisfaction;  his  sanity  was  called  in 


398  PERU 

question,  but  he  defended  his  opinions  with  such  dexterity  that 
this  excuse  was  abandoned;  four  theologians  were  let  loose  upon 
him  to  strive  for  his  conversion,  but  his  convictions  were  unalter- 
able. There  was  no  alternative  but  to  condemn  him  to  relaxation 
as  a  pertinacious  and  impenitent  heretic,  which  was  duly  agreed 
to,  July  14,  1576,  after  his  trial  had  lasted  for  nearly  five  years. 
Then,  on  May  18,  1577,  he  was  tortured  without  success  to  dis- 
cover his  intention  in  his  heresies,  and  he  waited  for  nearly  a 
year  more  until  the  final  act  of  the  tragedy  in  the  auto  of  April 
1,  1578.  As  he  was  said  to  have  repented  at  the  last,  he  was 
probably  strangled  before  burning. 

The  trial  of  Fray  Pedro  de  Toro  was  approaching  its  conclusion, 
after  more  than  three  years  of  incarceration,  when,  in  September, 
1575,  he  was  reported  to  be  dangerously  ill.  A  sentence  of  recon- 
ciliation was  adopted  and  he  was  allowed  to  be  sacramentally 
absolved.  Early  in  January,  1576,  he  was  near  ing  his  end  and 
on  the  13th  he  was  transferred  to  the  house  of  a  familiar,  where 
he  died  on  the  16th.  He  was  secretly  buried  in  the  church  of 
San  Domingo  and  was  reconciled  in  effigy  in  the  auto  of  1578. 

Fray  Alonso  Gasco,  although  self-denounced,  was  moderately 
tortured  on  intention.  He  was  sentenced  to  appear  in  the  auto, 
to  abjure  de  vehementi,  to  six  years'  reclusion  in  a  monastery,  he 
was  deprived  of  celebrating  for  one  year  and  perpetually  of  active 
and  passive  voice,  teaching,  preaching  and  confessing,  and  was  to 
be  sent  to  Spain  to  perform  his  penance.  After  the  auto  he  was 
duly  shipped  by  the  fleet,  April  20th,  but  on  the  voyage  he  talked 
about  his  case,  which  was  forbidden  by  the  Inquisition,  and  the 
tribunal  asked  the  Suprema  to  prosecute  him  again.  His  place 
of  reclusion  was  the  convent  of  Jerez  de  la  Frontera. 

The  Mercenarian,  Fray  Caspar  de  la  Huerta,  was  the  profeta 
oculto  of  the  revelations,  and  was  mixed  up  in  the  affair;  besides, 
he  had  administered  sacraments  without  being  in  full  orders  and 
had  managed  communications  in  prison  between  the  accom- 
plices. He  appeared  in  the  auto,  was  degraded  from  his  orders, 
received  two  hundred  lashes  and  was  sent  to  the  galleys  for  life. 


MYSTIC  IMPOSTORS  399 

Then  there  was  a  poor  man  named  Diego  Vaca,  who  could 
neither  read  nor  write,  but  who  had  some  dreams  which  Cruz 
and  Toro  regarded  as  revelations.  He  was  put  on  trial,  but 
acknowledged  his  errors  and  the  case  was  dropped.  The  Domini- 
can Provincial,  Fray  Andres  Velez,  was  brought  into  the  affair 
because  the  prisoners  had  written  to  him  and  he  had  replied 
that  efforts  were  making  in  Spain,  with  influence  and  money,  to 
obtain  relief  from  the  tyranny  of  the  inquisitors.  Proceedings 
were  commenced  against  him  but  he  got  wind  of  them  and  escaped 
to  Spain  early  in  1575.  The  tribunal  asked  the  Suprema  to 
have  him  returned  but  he  succeeded  in  averting  this. 

In  all  this  affair  some  mysterious  influence  protected  the  Jesuits, 
who  escaped  prosecution  with  their  accomplices.  After  the  auto, 
however,  Padre  Lopez  was  imprudent  enough  to  say  that  Cruz 
had  been  insane,  in  spite  of  which  the  inquisitors  had  made  a 
heretic  of  him  and  that  he  would  not  wish  to  have  Cerezuela's 
conscience.  The  tribunal  thereupon  referred  to  its  records 
which  proved  him  to  have  been  the  principal  exerciser  of  Maria 
Pizarro  and  to  have  corrupted  her.  It  further  gathered  testimony 
showing  him  to  be  an  habitual  solicitor  in  confession  and  among 
his  papers  was  found  a  tract  impugning  the  rightful  possession 
of  Peru  by  Philip  II — a  document  so  treasonable  that  the  viceroy 
sent  a  copy  of  it  to  the  king,  for  such  action  as  he  might  deem  fit, 
seeing  that  Lopez  was  one  of  the  most  prominent  and  influential 
of  the  Jesuits.  On  his  trial,  Lopez  admitted  the  evidence  as  to 
solicitation  and  confessed  to  other  cases,  although  he  argued  that 
they  were  not  technically  in  actu  confessionis.  He  was  spared 
appearance  in  an  auto.  His  sentence  was  privately  read  in  pres- 
ence of  eight  Jesuit  confessors  and  then  again  in  the  Jesuit  college 
in  presence  of  all  the  Jesuits,  where  a  discipline  was  administered 
lasting  the  space  of  two  Misereres.  It  bore  that  he  was  to  be  sent 
to  Spain  by  the  first  fleet,  being  strictly,  during  the  interval, 
confined  in  the  college,  incomunicado.  In  Spain  he  was  to  be 
recluded  for  two  years  in  the  Jesuit  house  of  Triguera,  after  which 
for  four  years  he  was  to  be  confined  in  some  designated  place  and 


400 

ten  leagues  around  it;  he  was  deprived  perpetually  of  confessing 
women  and  for  two  years  of  confessing  men.  He  was  duly  for- 
warded in  the  next  fleet.1 

Dona  Luisa  Melgarejo  was  a  bolder  practitioner  than  Maria 
Pizarro.  She  had  been  the  mistress  of  Dr.  Juan  de  Soto,  who 
had  been  compelled  to  marry  her.  For  twelve  years  she  carried 
on  a  profitable  trade  in  ecstasies,  revelations  and  other  manifes- 
tations, and  was  largely  consulted  about  marriages,  undertaking 
voyages,  obtaining  positions  and  other  similar  matters,  which 
brought  in  corresponding  fees.  Unbelievers  compared  her  to  the 
image  of  a  saint  and  Dr.  Soto  to  the  basin  under  it  for  receiv- 
ing offerings.  When  she  was  arrested,  November  14,  1623,  her 
writings,  consisting  of  fifty-seven  cuademos,  were  seized  in  the 
hands  of  two  Jesuits,  Padres  Contreras  and  Torres,  and  were 
found  to  be  full  of  alterations  and  erasures  by  them  to  eliminate 
numerous  heresies.  Apparently  the  collusion  of  Jesuits  indicated 
caution,  and  Inquisitor  Gait  an,  May  1, 1624,  reported  the  matter 
to  the  Suprema  and  asked  for  instructions,  with  what  result  the 
records  fail  to  inform  us.2  She  did  not  appear  in  the  auto  of 
December  21,  1625,  in  which  there  figured  four  similar  embusteras, 
who  had  traded  on  ecstasies  and  revelations.  Three  of  these, 
Maria  de  Santo  Domingo  of  Trujillo,  Isabel  de  Ormaza  and 
Isabel  de  Jesus  of  Lima,  had  given  proof  of  exuberant  imagina- 
tions in  speculating  upon  the  inexhaustible  appetite  for  marvels.3 

In  the  auto  of  March  16,  1693,  there  appeared  Angela  de  Olivi- 
tos  y  Esquivel  as  an  embustera  hipocrita.  She  was  a  sempstress 
by  trade  and  had  not  lived  a  moral  life,  as  she  had  borne  a  child 
to  one  of  her  devotees.  She  was  sentenced  to  reclusion  for  five 
years  in  a  designated  place  and  not  to  talk  or  write  about  revela- 
tions.4 She  was  probably  an  humble  imitator  of  the  queen  of 
impostors,  Angela  Carranza.  This  remarkable  woman  was  born 
in  Tucuman  about  1638.  In  1665  she  came  to  Lima  and  com- 


1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  57-117.  l  Ibidem,  II,  34-6. 

1  Ibidem,  pp.  27,  28,  30. 

4  Hoyo,  Relation  del  Auto  de  Fe  de  20  Diz.  1694,  fol.  54  (Lima,  1695). 


MYSTIC  IMPOSTORS  401 

menced  to  have  trances  which  she  took  care  to  be  in  public  and 
mostly  in  the  churches.  In  1673  she  began  to  write  out  her 
revelations,  and  learned  men  became  her  amanuenses  till  the 
product  amounted  to  fifteen  volumes  of  a  thousand  pages  each, 
in  a  small  and  close  handwriting.  Her  only  qualifications  were 
an  exhaustless  imagination  and  amazing  audacity.  In  her  youth 
her  unchastity  had  been  notorious  and  she  confessed  it  in  her 
trial;  she  was  self-indulgent  in  eating  and  sleeping,  foul  and  inde- 
cent in  her  talk  and  had  no  shame  in  exposing  her  person.  Such 
was  the  impostor  who  for  fifteen  years,  by  mere  dint  of  self- 
assertion,  made  herself  feared  and  revered  not  only  in  Lima 
but  throughout  Peru.  As  Inquisitor  Valera  says,  in  his  report 
of  the  case,  "She,  who  was  the  common  sewer  of  errors,  was 
regarded  as  a  paradise  of  perfections.  In  the  mistaken  appre- 
hensions of  men  she  was  the  saint  of  the  age,  the  wonder  of  the 
world,  the  mistress  of  mysticism,  the  advocate  of  the  people;  so 
frequent  were  the  accepted  miracles,  ecstasies,  trances,  intelli- 
gences and  revelations  that  heaven  was  regarded  as  condensed  in 

her Rosaries  and  beads  were  taken  to  her  house  not  one  by 

one  but  in  whole  chests  and  they  passed  to  Spain  and  even  to 
Rome  with  her  renown  ....  In  the  common  belief  of  the  kingdom, 
naught  was  lacking  to  her  but  canonization  and  the  altar.  Frag- 
ments of  what  she  had  touched  were  cherished  with  the  belief  that 
they  would  soon  become  relics. .  .  .She  deceived  the  human  race 
in  this  kingdom — viceroys,  archbishops,  bishops  and  prelates." 
She  threatened  and  prophesied  death  to  those  who  displeased 
her,  and  few  there  were  who  could  resist  the  superstitious  terror 
that  came  over  them  when  she  uttered  her  evil  forecasts.  Those 
who  did  not  believe  in  her  she  maligned,  and  we  are  told  that 
it  greatly  injured  their  prospects  on  account  of  her  repute,  not 
only  among  the  vulgar  but  among  the  learned  and  wise,  who 
regarded  her  words  as  oracles  from  heaven.  The  profound 
faith  which  she  inspired  is  illustrated  by  the  incident  that  when, 
after  the  earthquake  of  1687,  there  was  an  inundation,  and  at 
night  the  report  was  spread  that  the  sea  was  engulfing  the  land, 
26 


402 

there  was  a  panic  in  which  all  who  could  fled  to  the  mountains. 
A  man  in  charge  of  the  chest  in  which  her  writings  were  kept 
said  to  his  assistant  that  there  was  no  danger  of  the  sea  rising  to 
the  writings  of  the  angel,  even  if  it  covered  the  whole  earth,  so 
the  two  mounted  the  chest  and  stood  there  until  the  terror 
passed.1 

It  argues  a  surprisingly  low  level  of  intelligence  that  men  of  the 
highest  station  in  State  and  Church,  of  presumable  culture  in  the 
learned  professions,  and  of  common-sense  in  the  business  walks 
of  life,  should  have  accepted  without  question  the  vulgar  absurdi- 
ties, poured  forth  in  a  constant  stream,  which  reduced  the  awful 
mysteries  of  the  spiritual  world  to  the  basest  condition  of  common 
life,  and  represented  the  vituperative,  coarse,  grasping,  self-indul- 
gent woman,  whom  they  saw  leading  an  animal  existence,  as 
the  one  human  being  selected  by  God  to  be  the  repository  of  his 
powers  over  heaven,  purgatory  and  hell,  so  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
had  told  her  that  she  was  the  daughter  of  the  Father,  the  mother 
of  the  Son,  the  spouse  of  the  Holy  Ghost  and  the  sagrario  of  the 
Trinity,  and  once,  in  presence  of  the  Trinity,  the  Son  made  her 
take  his  seat  for  he  wished  her  to  form  the  Trinity  with  the 
Father  and  Holy  Ghost.  She  threatened  that  she  would  wake 
up  the  pope  and  cardinals  and  knock  them  on  the  head  to  make 
them  define  the  mystery  of  the  Immaculate  Conception.  Once 
on  entering  the  church  of  the  Incarnation  she  met  the  Virgin, 
who  offered  her  the  breast;  on  sucking  she  complained  that  the 
milk  was  salt,  and  the  Virgin  replied  that  it  had  become  so  in 
waiting  for  her.  Christ,  with  the  Virgin,  angels  and  saints,  once 
entered  her  chamber;  he  asked  for  a  chair  and  wanted  to  know 
whether  he  had  to  sit  on  the  bench  with  the  rest,  after  which  the 
bench  was  greatly  prized  by  her  devotees  as  a  relic.  It  would  be 
endless  to  repeat  all  these  absurdities  which  met  with  such  devout 
credence  and  a  single  one  of  her  stories  will  suffice.  In  a  field  of 
straw  she  saw  Christ  walking  hand  in  hand  with  a  young  girl 
dressed  as  a  beata.  Filled  with  jealousy  she  set  fire  to  the  straw 

1  Hoyo,  Relation,  fol.  2,  3,  34,  36,  38,  39,  43,  44,  45,  48.— Medina,  Lima,  II,  258. 


MYSTIC  IMPOSTORS  403 

and  left  Christ  burning,  and  when  the  angels  remonstrated  she 
said  she  was  going  to  purgatory  to  release  souls  and  then  to  hell 
to  do  the  same.  She  went  to  purgatory  and  released  many  souls, 
but  some  would  not  go,  among  them  her  father,  who  said  that 
his  time  would  not  come  until  she  was  dead,  when  she  replied 
that  he  would  have  to  wait,  for  she  was  still  a  young  girl.1 

She  did  a  thriving  business  in  many  ways.  She  carried  to 
heaven  beads,  rosaries,  candles,  bells,  swords  and  rosemary, 
which  were  blessed  on  various  saints'  days  and  possessed  special 
virtues  accordingly.  They  were  brought  to  her  for  the  purpose 
by  the  basketful  and,  on  one  occasion,  Christ  was  vexed  and 
said ' '  This  is  a  huckster  business."  When  she  was  condemned  and 
they  were  brought  in  they  filled  a  room  in  the  Inquisition.  Once 
she  lent  her  shoes  to  the  Virgin,  whereupon  Christ  gave  to  her 
shoes  the  same  virtue  as  that  of  the  rosaries,  which  made  a  great 
demand  for  her  old  shoes.  This  kept  her  in  foot-gear,  for  new 
shoes  were  constantly  brought  to  exchange  for  her  old  ones. 
Her  intervention  was  continually  invoked  in  cases  of  sickness  and 
difficulty,  and  her  prophetic  power  was  sought  in  marriages, 
voyages  and  enterprises  of  all  kinds.  These  she  sold  at  a  round 
price  and  she  had  a  cashier  who  kept  an  itemized  account  of  her 
receipts — so  much  for  a  case  of  mumps,  so  much  for  fever,  so 
much  for  the  miracle  of  the  ingots — and  some  of  the  entries  were 
of  one  and  two  thousand  pesos.2 

After  fifteen  years  of  success,  there  would  seem  no  reason  why 
this  career  might  not  have  continued  until  her  death,  to  be 
followed  with  a  demand  for  her  canonization  supported  by  ample 
store  of  miracles.  Possibly  there  may  be  truth  in  the  story  that, 
on  a  rainy  day  in  the  calle  del  Rastro,  she  disputed  the  sidewalk 
with  a  Franciscan  fraile,  who  rudely  elbowed  her  into  the  mud. 
This  caused  such  indignation  that  the  offender  expiated  his 
clownishness  with  two  months  in  the  convent  prison,  when,  to 
satisfy  his  rancor,  he  kept  close  watch  on  her  and  obtained  proof 
that  she  was  a  sinner,  whereupon  he  denounced  her  to  the  Inqui- 

1  Hoyo,  fol.  16,  27,  28,  40,  42.  »  Ibidem,  fol.  17,  18,  39. 


404  PERU 

sition.1  If  so,  the  denunciation  came  to  one  ready  to  act  upon  it 
in  spite  of  the  shock  given  to  public  opinion.  Inquisitor  Valera, 
whose  resolute  aggressiveness  had  rendered  his  career  in  Cartagena 
one  of  perpetual  turbulence,  had  just  been  transferred  to  Lima, 
and  doubtless  eagerly  seized  the  occasion  to  make  an  impression 
in  his  new  post.  Angela  de  Dios,  as  she  called  herself,  was  arrested 
December  21, 1688.  The  trial  lasted  for  six  years,  owing  doubtless 
to  the  immense  mass  of  her  writings  to  be  examined,  and  her 
numerous  heresies  to  be  characterized  and  condemned,  for  she 
had  ventured  upon  dangerous  theological  ground  and  had  con- 
structed a  grotesque  theogony  to  prove  the  Immaculate  Concep- 
tion. In  her  prolonged  incarceration  she  professed  to  be  still 
comforted  by  visits  from  Christ  and  the  Virgin;  she  bore  her 
confinement  cheerfully,  was  eager  for  her  three  meals  a  day,  and 
was  generally  found  snoring  when  her  cell  was  entered.2 

Her  system  of  defence  was  shrewd.  She  denied  having  given 
assent  or  belief  to  what  was  expressed  in  her  writings;  she  had 
merely  recited  what  she  had  seen  and  heard  in  her  trances  and 
submitted  it  to  the  learned  men  who  were  her  confessors.  Finally 
on  June  2,  1694,  she  asked  for  an  audience  in  which  she  said  that, 
enlightened  by  God  through  this  holy  tribunal,  she  had  been 
illuminated  to  detest  the  doctrines  and  propositions  in  her 
writings,  which  she  now  saw  were  heretical  and  blasphemous  and 
defamatory.  There  had  been,  she  said,  no  deception  on  her  part 
as  to  her  visions,  and  she  had  referred  them  to  those  whose  virtue 
and  religion  enabled  them  to  counsel  her.  Under  their  com- 
mand she  had  reduced  them  to  writing;  she  had  wanted  to  burn 
the  writings,  but  had  been  forbidden  to  do  so  and  had  never  seen 
them  after  they  left  her  hands.  Now  that  the  tribunal  had  con- 
demned them  she  asked  pardon  of  God  and  of  his  judges  and 
ministers,  for  she  saw  that  she  had  been  deceived.  Nothing 
more  could  be  required  and  her  sentence  soon  followed,  which 
bore  that  she  was  to  appear  in  a  public  auto,  to  abjure  de  vehe- 
menti,  to  be  confined  in  a  monastery  for  four  years,  to  be  deprived 

1  Palma,  p.  67.  l  Hoyo,  fol.  8,  9,  11,  49-50. 


MYSTIC  IMPOSTORS  405 

of  pen  and  ink,  and  never  to  treat  of  revelations,  together  with 
sundry  spiritual  exercises  and  ten  years'  exile  from  Lima  and 
Tucuman,  while  a  public  edict  ordered  the  surrender  of  all  beads, 
rosaries,  nail-parings  and  other  objects  treasured  as  relics.1 

A  public  auto  was  arranged  for  December  20, 1694,  but,  so  great 
was  the  popular  revulsion  of  feeling  against  her,  that  it  was  not 
deemed  safe  to  let  her  appear  in  the  procession  from  the  Inquisition 
to  the  church  of  San  Domingo.  She  was  secretly  conveyed  thither 
in  a  closed  carriage  two  hours  before  day-break,  and  after  the 
ceremonies  she  was  not  returned  to  the  tribunal  with  the  other 
penitents.  She  was  kept  until  late  in  the  afternoon  and  then, 
by  a  back  door,  was  placed  in  the  carriage  with  two  persons  of 
rank.  In  spite  of  these  precautions  some  boys  divined  the  truth 
and  commenced  stoning  the  carriage.  Crowds  gathered  and  a 
guard  of  soldiers  was  brought,  but  to  little  purpose,  for  the  stones 
flew  thicker  and  thicker;  one  of  the  occupants  was  seriously 
injured  and  it  was  as  though  by  miracle  that  the  carriage  reached 
the  Inquisition  without  being  wrecked.  Similar  caution  was 
observed  in  keeping  her  there  for  a  month  and  conveying  her  to 
her  place  of  reclusion.  Meanwhile  all  over  Lima  boys  were  cele- 
brating mock  autos,  carrying  her  effigies  in  procession  and  scourg- 
ing and  burning  them.2  It  was  probably  the  number  and  high 
station  of  her  devotees  that  prevented  a  general  prosecution,  for 
only  her  three  confessors,  Ignacio  Ixar,  priest  of  San  Marcelo, 
and  the  Augustinians,  Fray  Jose  de  Prado  and  Fray  Agustin 
Roman,  were  arrested  and  tried.3 

Among  her  revelations  were  some  concerning  an  Indian  tailor, 
Nicolds  de  Aillon  known  as  Nicolas  de  Dios,  who  died  November 
7,  1677,  with  the  reputation  of  a  servant  of  God,  and  was  repre- 
sented as  having  been  carried  immediately  to  heaven  by  Christ, 
taking  with  him  a  crowd  of  souls  from  purgatory.  His  widow 
sought  to  establish  his  sanctity  and  the  Jesuit,  Bernardo  Sartolo, 
wrote  a  book,  published  in  Madrid  in  1684,  in  which  he  accepted 
Angela's  story  as  true  and  praised  without  stint  the  tailor's 

1  Hoyo,  fol.  50-1.  2  Ibidem,  fol.  51-3.  '  Medina,  Lima,  II,  262. 


406  PERU 

confessor,  Fray  Pedro  de  Avila  Tamayo,  who  had  been  punished 
by  the  Inquisition  as  a  scandalous  corrupter  of  women  in  the 
confessional.  When  the  book  reached  Lima  it  excited  a  lively 
discussion  and  was  prohibited  by  the  tribunal.  The  efforts  to 
canonize  Aillon,  however,  were  not  relinquished,  for,  in  1711, 
papal  letters  were  received  by  the  archbishop,  ordering  him  to 
collect  information  as  to  the  life  and  virtues  of  the  candidate. 
What  was  done  is  not  recorded,  but  we  may  assume  that  the 
response  caused  the  affair  to  be  dropped.1 

The  popular  detestation  excited  by  Angela  Carranza  seems  to 
have  served  as  a  deterrent  on  impostures  of  the  kind,  for  no  other 
cases  are  on  record  until  about  1720,  when  a  quadroon  named 
Maria  Josepha  de  la  Encarnacion  was  prosecuted  for  visions  and 
revelations.  She  was  not  treated  as  leniently  as  Angela  for, 
although  she  was  perfectly  harmless  and  had  attempted  no 
speculations  on  her  devotees,  and  although,  during  her  trial,  she 
was  so  ill  that  she  had  to  be  transferred  to  a  hospital,  she  was 
visited  with  the  cruel  punishment  of  two  hundred  lashes  through 
the  streets  of  Lima.2  If  subsequent  cases  occurred,  their  records 
have  failed  to  reach  us. 

Mystic  Illuminism  and  Quietism,  which  called  for  such  energetic 
repression  by  the  Spanish  tribunals,  seem  to  have  had  little 
currency  in  the  more  stagnant  spiritual  life  of  Peru.  There  is  only 
one  group  of  cases  in  the  records,  but  these  cast  so  much  light  on 
inquisitorial  methods  that  they  deserve  treatment  in  some  detail. 

In  November,  1709,  there  died  at  Santiago  de  Chile  the  Jesuit 
Padre  Francisco  de  Ulloa,  a  man  of  little  education  but  of  high 
spiritual  gifts,  nourished  on  the  mysticism  of  Tauler.  He  had 
devoted  himself  to  the  direction  of  consciences  and  had  a  circle 
of  about  thirty  devotees,  many  of  them  nuns,  who  reverenced 


1  Medina  Lima,  II,  262,  264.— Index  Prohib.  et  Expurg.,  1747,  I,  124.    The 
title  of  Sartolo's  book  was  "Vida  admirable  y  muerte  prodigioso  de  Nicolas  de 
Ayllon  y  con  nombre  mas  que  curioso  Nicolas  de  Dios,  natural  de  Clayo  en  las 
Indias  del  Peru."     Madrid,  1684. 

2  Medina,  Lima,  II,  241. 


QUIETISM  407 

him  as  a  saint.  On  his  death-bed  he  committed  his  flock  to 
another  Jesuit,  Padre  Manuel  de  Ovalle,  who  found  on  assuming 
charge  that,  although  they  confessed  freely,  he  could  not  penetrate 
into  the  spiritual  recesses  of  their  souls.  Suspecting  that  there 
lay  concealed  the  doctrines  forbidden  in  Molinos,  Madame  Guyon 
and  Fenelon,  he  pretended  to  be  himself  in  search  of  the  higher 
spiritual  experiences;  he  drew  up  a  series  of  propositions,  among 
which  were  some  of  those  condemned,  and  submitted  it  to  a  few 
of  the  leading  spirits  who  accepted  it,  thus  committing  themselves 
to  the  dangerous  doctrines  of  the  absolute  abandonment  of  the 
soul  to  God,  the  non-resistance  to  temptation,  the  idleness  of 
exterior  observances,  and  the  impeccability  of  the  confirmed 
adept.  After  six  months  spent  in  this  pious  treachery,  and 
having  secured  written  evidence  of  these  heresies  as  entertained 
by  Jose  Solis  and  Pedro  Ubau,  he  denounced  them,  June  14,  1710, 
to  the  tribunal  of  Lima,  with  all  others  whose  names  he  had  ascer- 
tained. He  admitted  that  Solis  and  Ubau,  Dona  Petronilla 
Covarnibias,  Jose  Gonzalez,  Dona  Josef  a  Maturano  and  others, 
who  were  leaders  among  them,  were  persons  of  pure  life,  and  that 
some  whose  careers  had  been  evil,  after  practising  the  exercises 
prescribed  by  Ulloa,  became  virtuous  and  deeply  religious,  but 
this  had  no  bearing  on  their  heresy.  At  Concepcion  there  was 
another  proselyte,  Fray  Felipe  Chavarri,  whose  errors  were 
shown  by  a  letter  which  he  enclosed.  Still  another  leading  spirit 
was  Juan  Francisco  Velazco,  an  expelled  Jesuit,  who  resisted 
Ovalle's  advances.  Some  extravagances  on  his  part  attracted 
public  attention  and  finally  became  so  marked  that  he  was  con- 
fined in  the  public  prison. 

Anything  akin  to  Molinism  was  regarded  as  dangerous  in  the 
highest  degree,  but  the  Lima  tribunal  was  so  inert  that  it  was 
not  until  December  10,  1712,  that  the  Commissioner  Manuel  de 
Barona  summoned  Ovalle  to  confirm  his  denunciation.  On  this 
same  December  10th,  another  Jesuit,  Antonio  Marfa  Fanelli, 
wrote  to  the  tribunal  enclosing  some  writings  of  Solis  and  reciting 
the  obstructions  placed  in  the  way  of  his  attempts  to  have  the 


408 

affair  investigated  at  Santiago,  where  all  were  connected  by  inter- 
marriages and  friendships.  The  writings  of  Solis  were  submitted 
to  a  calificador,  Maestro  Dionisio  Granado,  who  reported,  Decem- 
ber 22d,  that  they  contained  the  heresies  of  Molinos,  Luther  and 
Calvin.  After  this  there  was  a  pause  until  February,  1714,  when 
Commissioner  Barona  received  further  denunciations  of  Solis 
from  the  Jesuit  Claudio  Cruzat  and  the  Mercenarian  Nicolas 
Nolasco.  These  were  soon  followed  by  a  deposition  of  Mariana 
Gonzalez  showing  that  Solis's  teachings  were  pure  Illuminism 
of  the  Quietist  school.  She  had  been  under  Ulloa's  direction  for 
two  years  before  his  death,  and  he  taught  the  same  doctrines. 
Altogether  her  testimony  was  of  the  most  damaging  character, 
and  she  added  the  names  of  eighteen  of  Ulloa's  disciples.  Stirred 
by  this  Barona  procured  evidence  from  others  of  the  group  and 
sent  the  whole  to  the  tribunal.  On  the  strength  of  it  the  fiscal, 
August  27th,  presented  a  clamosa  against  Solis  as  a  follower  of 
Molinos  and  demanded  his  arrest  with  sequestration.  Ibanez, 
who  was  sole  inquisitor  at  the  time,  on  September  1st  signed  a 
decree  for  the  prosecution  of  all  the  disciples  of  Ulloa,  but  on 
November  9th,  in  view  of  the  importance  of  the  case,  he  ordered 
a  fresh  calificacion  and  inquiries  to  be  made  as  to  the  standing  of 
Ovalle.  Fray  Antonio  Urraca  was  sent  as  a  special  commissioner 
ad  hoc  to  Santiago  to  verify  the  evidence  and  gather  fresh  testimony. 
Urraca  lost  no  time  in  proceeding  to  Santiago  where  he  remained 
until  1718  employed  on  the  work,  and  it  was  not  until  February  10, 
1719,  that  he  presented  himself  to  the  tribunal  to  report.  Solis, 
Ubau  and  Velazco  had  already  been  received  as  prisoners  in 
November,  1718.  In  sending  them,  Commissioner  Barona  stated 
that  Solis,  through  poverty,  had  gone  to  the  mines,  where  he  had 
been  arrested.  Velazco  had  been  crazy  for  two  years  and  was 
found  on  a  ranch  with  no  property  but  a  poor  bed.  Ubau  had 
four  thousand  pesos  in  his  possession;  his  arrest  had  caused  great 
excitement,  for  he  was  accountant  for  nuns  and  frailes,  for  the 
cabildo  of  the  city  and  for  merchants,  universally  respected  for 
uprightness  and  punctual  in  his  religious  duties. 


QUIETISM  409 

Thus  far,  although  dilatory  in  action,  the  proceedings  of  the 
tribunal  had  been  unexceptionable.  Molinism  was  an  aberration 
that  had  excited  too  much  abhorrence  for  any  substantial  accu- 
sation of  it  to  be  neglected.  All  reasonable  effort  had  been  made 
to  obtain  and  to  verify  evidence;  there  seems  to  have  been  no 
desire  to  persecute  the  bulk  of  the  disciples  of  Ulloa  and  attention 
was  concentrated  on  three  who  were  regarded  as  leaders  and  dog- 
matizers.  After  this,  however,  there  is  much  to  criticize  in  the 
prosecutions.  Ubau,  who  was  perfectly  sane  when  incarcerated, 
began  to  manifest  symptoms  of  mental  alienation  which  developed 
into  complete  insanity.  In  February,  1733,  he  was  transferred 
to  the  convent  of  the  Recollects  and  finally  to  the  insane  depart- 
ment of  the  hospital  of  San  Andres.  Velazco  pleaded  that  he 
had  been  insane  for  nine  years,  with  lucid  intervals;  his  health 
•speedily  broke  down,  consumption  set  in  and  he  was  transferred, 
March  15,  1719,  to  the  hospital  of  San  Andres  where  he  died  on 
the  19th  and  his  body  was  returned  to  the  tribunal  to  be  thrust 
into  the  ground.  Proceedings  were  continued  against  his  memory 
and  fame,  the  advocate  of  prisoners  arguing  that  irresponsibility 
precluded  his  condemnation  for  formal  heresy.  As  for  Solis, 
the  accusation  against  him  consisted  of  eighty  articles  and  as- 
sumed that  he  was  wholly  an  apostate  from  the  faith.  He  pro- 
tested that  he  had  persuaded  himself  that  God  had  revealed  to 
him  the  spiritual  way;  this  had  been  his  fault,  for  which  he  begged 
mercy  and  was  ready  to  accept  any  penance  that  might  be 
imposed.  His  advocate  defended  him  by  pointing  out  the 
deceitful  way  in  which  Ovalle  had  beguiled  him  into  error,  by 
submitting  to  him  propositions  of  Molinos  which  he  had  admitted 
under  examination  that  he  did  not  understand.  He  had  never 
even  heard  the  name  of  Miguel  de  Molinos,  so  he  could  not  be 
termed  his  disciple  and,  if  he  had  erred,  it  had  been  in  following 
his  confessor  Ulloa.  As  for  Ulloa,  the  prosecution  of  his  memory 
and  fame  was  carried  through  its  regular  course.  The  accusation 
represented  him  as  a  dogmatizer  of  the  heresies  of  Luther,  Calvin, 
Molinos  and  Ubicler  (Wickliffe).  There  were  a  hundred  and 


410  PERU 

sixty  articles  and  twenty  witnesses  to  prove  them.  When  a 
defender  was  called  for,  by  command  of  the  Jesuit  Provincial 
the  procurador-general  of  the  province  of  Chile  presented  himself 
and  the  most  strenuous  efforts  were  made  to  protect  the  honor  of 
the  Society.  Padre  Firmin  de  Irisarri,  who  conducted  the  defence, 
says  that  there  was  no  proof  that  Ulloa  had  ever  taught  the 
worst  of  the  propositions  ascribed  to  him,  and  he  throws  the  whole 
blame  on  the  artifice  of  Ovalle  betraying  three  unlettered  laymen 
into  accepting  doctrines  which  they  were  led  to  believe  were 
entertained  by  him  to  whom  the  dying  Ulloa  had  entrusted 
them. 

As  far  as  the  living  were  concerned,  the  cases  were  concluded 
and  ready  for  sentence  in  1725.  Then  ensued  an  inexplicable 
delay  until  1736,  when  Calderon  and  Unda  were  in  control  of  the 
tribunal.  The  last  auto  general  celebrated  in  Peru  was  announced 
for  December  23d  and  was  solemnized  in  the  public  plaza,  with 
exceptionally  imposing  ceremonies,  in  the  presence  of  the  viceroy, 
the  Marquis  of  Villagarcla,  and  of  all  the  magnates.  The  effigies 
of  Ulloa  and  Velazco  were  brought  forward,  condemned  and 
burnt;  that  of  Solis  was  reconciled  in  view  of  his  submission. 
The  unfortunate  Ubau,  in  spite  of  his  insanity,  had  been  con- 
demned, December  1st,  to  be  relaxed  as  an  impenitent  heretic  who 
denied  his  guilt,  and,  as  his  mental  condition  would  have  precluded 
repentance,  he  would  have  been  burnt  alive,  but  for  some  reason 
he  was  not  brought  forward  and  was  allowed  to  linger  in  the  hospi- 
tal until  he  died  in  1747.  The  sentence,  however,  confiscated  his 
property  which,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  353)  amounted  to  more  than 
sixty  thousand  pesos  and  disappeared  without  leaving  a  trace. 
It  would  scarce  be  doing  injustice  to  Calderon  and  Unda  to  sug- 
gest that  the  taking  up  of  these  cases,  after  ten  years'  interval, 
may  have  been  to  conceal  the  abstraction  of  the  sequestration.1 

When  the  Visitador  Arenaza  and  the  Inquisitor  Amusqufbar, 
in  1746,  arraigned  their  predecessors  they  laid  special  stress  on 

1  Medina,  Chile,  II,  276-356,  450.— Bermudez  de  la  Torre,  Triunfos  del  Santo 
Oficjo  Peruano,  Lima,  1737, 


QUIETISM  411 

the  irregularities  and  excesses  which  characterized  the  conduct 
of  these  cases.  In  that  of  Ulloa,  the  consulta  de  fe  voted  in  dis- 
cordia;  another  consulta  was  called,  from  which  the  two  consultors 
who  had  voted  in  favor  of  the  accused  were  excluded;  another 
Ordinary,  who  had  as  consultor  condemned  Ulloa's  papers,  was 
substituted  for  the  previous  one,  and  two  new  consultors  were 
summoned,  who  were  only  allowed  a  morning  in  which  to  examine 
the  voluminous  documents,  and  the  consulta  was  held  on  a  feast- 
day  when  Ibafiez  refused  to  act. 

Even  before  this,  however,  the  Suprema  had  commenced  action. 
The  Jesuits  had  been  profoundly  stirred  by  the  condemnation  of 
Ulloa  and  the  suspension  in  the  churches  of  the  sanbenito  of  a 
member  of  their  Order.  It  was  doubtless  owing  to  their  influence 
that  the  Suprema,  March  10,  1738,  ordered  all  the  papers  in  the 
case  of  the  Molinists  to  be  sent  to  Spain  and  the  sanbenitos  of 
Ulloa  to  be  removed  from  the  churches  of  Lima  and  Santiago. 
This  last  command  was  unwillingly  obeyed  and,  in  reporting  its 
execution,  January  10,  1739,  the  tribunal  remonstrated  bitterly 
as  to  the  disastrous  results  to  the  authority  of  the  Inquisition  and 
to  the  faith.  The  papers  were  duly  forwarded,  but  were  detained 
in  Panama"  until  1746,  when  they  were  despatched  by  way  of  Brazil. 
It  was  not,  however,  until  1762  that  the  Suprema  delivered  its 
judgement.  It  called  attention  to  the  many  irregularities  and 
inexcusable  delays  in  the  case  of  Solis,  but  did  not  modify  the 
judgement.  In  that  of  Velazco,  it  revoked  the  sentence  as  unjust, 
absolved  his  memory  and  fame,  ordered  his  property  to  be  restored 
to  his  heirs,  less  the  expenses  of  maintenance,  and  that  a  certificate 
rehabilitating  them  be  given  and  the  sanbenitos  be  removed  from 
the  churches.  The  review  of  the  trial  of  Ulloa  was  long  and 
minute,  pointing  out  its  innumerable  irregularities  and  denials 
of  justice;  there  was  no  proof  that  he  ever  held  the  doctrines 
imputed  to  him  and  no  effort  to  ascertain  the  truth;  a  false  and 
imperfect  report  of  the  case,  moreover,  had  been  made  to  the 
Suprema.1  

1  Medina,  Chile,  II,  388-91,  442-8. 


412 

There  were  six  other  disciples  of  Ulloa  who  were  treated  in  the 
same  inexcusable  fashion.  Two  or  three  of  them  had  appeared 
before  the  Santiago  commissioner,  in  1710  and  1718.  Nothing 
more  was  done  with  them  until  the  affair  was  revived  for  the  auto 
of  1736,  when  they  were  arrested  and  brought  to  Lima  and  tried. 
It  is  scarce  worth  while  to  detail  the  cases.  It  suffices  to  say 
that  two  of  them  died  in  consequence,  and  that  in  at  least  two 
of  the  cases  the  Suprema,  in  1762,  set  aside  the  sentences  as  unjus- 
tifiable. The  auto  of  1736  had  not  escaped  severe  criticism  in 
Lima,  which  the  tribunal  repressed  by  trying  two  of  the  critics 
and  fining  them  in  five  hundred  pesos  each.  A  third  was  a  Jesuit, 
Padre  Gabriel  de  Ordufia,  whom  Calderon  and  Unda  apparently 
were  afraid  to  handle.  The  evidence  was  sent  to  the  Suprema, 
which  replied  that  Ibanez  should  summon  him  and  warn  him  to 
treat  the  Holy  Office  with  due  respect.  This  became  known  in 
Lima  to  the  mortification  of  the  inquisitors  who  suspended  the 


In  the  chief  matter  for  which  the  tribunal  was  founded — the 
protection  of  the  colony  from  the  presumable  missionary  efforts 
of  the  Protestants — it  found  little  to  do.  No  case  of  proselytism 
has  been  found  among  the  records  thus  far  and  those  of  voluntary 
Protestant  residents  are  few  and  far  between.  The  archbishop, 
as  we  have  seen,  had  disposed  of  Jan  Miller  in  1548,  and  in  the 
first  auto  de  fe,  in  1573,  there  appeared  Joan  Bautista  and  Mateo 
Salado.  In  1581  there  was  a  courageous  martyr  in  the  person 
of  Jan  Bernal,  a  Flemish  tailor  who  had  been  arrested  and  for- 
warded by  the  Commissioner  of  Panama.  At  first  he  professed 
conversion  and  begged  mercy,  but  he  regained  his  fortitude  and 
declared  that  it  was  better  to  burn  in  this  world  than  the  next. 
To  this  he  adhered  in  spite  of  strenuous  efforts  to  convert  him. 
He  was  tortured  in  caput  alienum  without  success  and  was  sent- 
enced to  relaxation.  He  was  pertinacious  to  the  last  and  must 
therefore  undoubtedly  have  been  burnt  alive.  In  the  auto  of 

1  Medina,  Chile,  II,  450-61. 


PROTESTANTS  413 

November  30,  1587,  there  appeared  Miguel  del  Pilar,  a  Fleming, 
whose  constancy  was  punished  by  relaxation  and  burning.1  Then 
a  long  interval  occurs  until  1625,  when  a  man  called  Adrian 
Rodriguez  of  Leyden  was  induced  to  profess  conversion  and  was 
reconciled  with  eight  years  of  galleys  and  a  sanbenito  for  life.  A 
century  elapses  when,  in  1730,  there  was  an  autillo  for  Robert 
Shaw,  a  Nova  Scotian,  who  deserted  from  Clipperton's  expedition 
and  penetrated  to  Cuzco,  where  he  was  arrested  as  a  heretic  and 
sent  to  Lima.  He  professed  readiness  for  conversion  and  was 
confided  for  instruction  to  Dr.  Thomas  Correy  but  soon  ran  away, 
carrying  with  him  160  pesos  and  some  jewels.  He  took  service 
with  a  butcher  in  Puno,  was  discovered  and  taken  back  to  Lima, 
where  he  escaped  with  some  spiritual  penances.  About  ten  years 
later,  James  Haden  of  Boston  was  prosecuted  as  a  heretic  and 
was  converted.2  The  extreme  sensitiveness  which  would  not 
permit  Spanish  soil  to  be  polluted  by  a  Protestant  foot  is  seen  in 
the  case  of  Pierre  Fos,  a  French  Protestant  of  Protestant  descent, 
who  was  cook  to  Viceroy  Superunda.  He  attended  mass  and 
passed  for  a  Catholic,  but  betrayed  himself  and  was  arrested 
in  1758.  He  confessed  at  once  and  said  he  would  become  a 
Catholic  if  he  could  obtain  his  parents'  consent;  then,  after  three 
days  of  prison,  he  announced  his  conversion  to  save  his  soul. 
Instructors  were  given  to  him  and  his  trial  dragged  on  through 
all  its  cumbrous  forms  until  his  sentence  was  read  in  an  auto 
of  May  18,  1763.  It  condemned  him  to  abjure  de  vehementi,  to 
be  paraded  in  virgilenza  through  the  streets,  to  confiscation  of  half 
his  property,  reclusion  for  instruction  during  two  years,  after 
which  he  was  to  be  shipped  to  Spain,  consigned  to  the  commis- 
sioner at  Cadiz.  The  last  papers  in  the  case  are  the  receipt  for 
his  person  by  the  captain  of  the  good  ship  los  Placeres,  Callao, 
April  2, 1765,  and  the  receipt  from  the  receiver,  April  22d,  for  the 
documents  concerning  his  property.  It  was  doubtless  his  pre- 
tended Catholicism  that  justified  this  severity.3 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  150-6,  257.  »  Ibidem,  II,  29,  287,  310,  375. 

1  Archive  national  de  Lima. 


414  PERU 

It  is  a  curious  illustration  of  the  Spanish  theories  concerning 
heresy  and  its  cognizance  by  the  Inquisition  that  even  heretics, 
whose  presence  was  involuntary  as  prisoners  of  war,  were  held 
to  come  within  its  jurisdiction,  and  the  Lima  tribunal  had  much 
more  to  do  with  such  subjects  than  with  those  who  ventured 
intentionally  within  its  grasp.  In  1578  it  wrote  to  Juan  Con- 
stantino, its  commissioner  at  Panamd,  that  it  understood  that  the 
English  corsairs  who  appeared  there  were  heretics  and  that  it 
would  proceed  as  such  against  any  who  were  captured.  They 
robbed  the  commissioner  and  left  him  in  his  shirt,  they  broke 
the  chalice  and  patena  and  cast  into  the  sea  the  altar  and  missal. 
The  commissioner  on  his  part  denounced  the  General  of  the 
armada  del  Mar  de  Norte  for  keeping  in  his  service  two  or  three 
Englishmen  as  trumpeters  and  an  artilleryman,  whom  he  ought 
to  have  delivered  to  the  Inquisition  of  Seville.1  Sometimes 
the  secular  authorities  maintained  a  cumulative  jurisdiction  with 
a  result  grotesquely  horrible.  Thus,  in  1581  there  were  four 
English  prisoners  surrendered  to  the  tribunal  which  tortured  them 
severely  for  intention  and  sentenced  John  Oxenham,  "  captain 
of  the  robbers  at  Ballano,"  to  reconciliation,  confiscation  and  the 
galleys  for  life;  Thomas  Xervel  (Harvey  ?),  master  of  the  ship, 
to  reconciliation,  ten  years  of  galleys  and  subsequent  perpetual 
prison;  John  Butler,  pilot  of  the  ship,  to  abjure  de  vehementi  and 
six  years  of  galleys;  the  fourth,  Henry  Butler,  a  young  brother 
of  the  last,  was  not  tried.  It  sounds  like  a  ghastly  jest  to  learn 
that  the  alcaldes  had  already  sentenced  the  first  three  to  be 
hanged  and  the  last  one  to  perpetual  galleys;  they  were  all  returned 
to  the  secular  court  and  the  sentences  were  duly  executed.  As 
they  had  evidently  all  been  converted,  the  tribunal  at  least  had 
the  pious  satisfaction  of  saving  their  souls.2  About  1585  there 
is  a  brief  entry  of  a  dozen  or  so  of  Englishmen  captured  at  Guaya- 
quil and  taken  to  Lima.  The  Viceroy  Count  del  Villar  asked  them 
whether  they  were  baptized  and  on  learning  that  they  were  thus 
answerable  to  the  Inquisition,  he  handed  them  over  to  the  tri- 

1  Medina,  Chile,  I,  363.  '  Medina,  Lima,  I,  157;  Chile,  I,  359. 


PROTESTANTS  415 

bunal.  What  were  their  sentences  and  whether  the  secular  court 
reclaimed  them  does  not  appear.1 

The  next  adventurers  who  suffered  appeared  in  the  auto  of 
November  30,  1587.  John  Drake,  a  cousin  of  Sir  Francis,  passed 
the  Straits  of  Magellan  and  was  lost  on  the  Pacific  coast.  Thir- 
teen of  the  crew  saved  themselves  and  fell  among  cannibal  Indians 
with  whom  they  lived  for  about  a  year.  Drake  and  two  others 
fled  in  a  canoe  down  the  River  Plate  to  Buenos  Ayres,  one  of 
them  being  lost  in  the  Paraguay.  Drake  and  his  comrade  Rich- 
ard Ferrel  were  seized,  sent  across  the  continent  to  Arica  and 
thence  to  Lima,  where  they  were  tried  by  the  tribunal.  They 
professed  conversion;  Drake  was  sentenced  to  reconciliation  and 
seclusion  for  three  years  in  a  monastery  with  prohibition  to  leave 
the  country.  Ferrel  must  have  been  somewhat  more  stubborn, 
for  he  was  tortured  and  condemned  to  reconciliation,  four  years 
of  galleys  and  perpetual  prison.2 

The  auto  of  April  5, 1592,  was  graced  with  two  groups  of  English 
prisoners.  Four  of  these  had  been  captured  on  the  island  of 
Puna  and  had  lain  in  prison  for  five  years.  The  secular  authorities 
seem  to  have  abandoned  jurisdiction  by  this  time  and  left  them 
wholly  to  the  Inquisition.  Walter  and  Edward  Tillert,  brothers, 
were  relaxed  as  persistent  heretics,  but  weakened  at  the  last 
moment  and  were  strangled  before  burning.  Henry  Axli  (Oxley  ?) 
was  pertinacious  to  the  end  and  was  burnt  alive.  The  fourth, 
Andrew  Marie  (Morley  ?),  a  youth  of  eighteen,  professed  con- 
version and  was  reconciled,  with  two  years  reclusion  among  the 
Jesuits  for  instruction.3 

The  other  group  consisted  of  three  "  pirates,"  from  the  expe- 
dition of  Thomas  Cavendish,  who  sailed  from  Plymouth  July  21, 
1586.  He  reached  the  Straits  of  Magellan  January  3,  1587, 
emerged  March  15th  and  on  April  9th  anchored  in  the  roadstead 
of  Quintero,  a  little  north  of  Valparaiso.  At  Santiago  a  force 
had  been  raised  in  anticipation  of  their  coming,  and  when  the 

1  Archive  nacional  de  Lima,  Protocolo  228,  Exp*  5287. 

2  Medina,  La  Plata,  pp.  117-19.  "  Medina,  Lima,  I,  296-8. 


416 

English,  in  need  of  wood  and  water,  had  landed  a  party,  they 
surrounded  twelve  men,  who  had  straggled  to  a  ravine,  and  carried 
them  to  Santiago.  There  nine  of  them  were  summarily  hanged, 
to  the  great  benefit  of  their  souls,  for  they  professed  conversion. 
The  other  three  were  shipped  to  Lima,  and  delivered  to  the  Inqui- 
sition where  their  trials  lasted  for  three  years.  Of  these  William 
Stephens  said  his  parents  were  both  Catholics,  and  his  mother 
had  died  in  gaol  for  possessing  beads  and  images;  he  had  observed 
the  religion  of  his  country  but  was  in  heart  a  Catholic;  he  was 
reconciled  with  four  years  prison  and  sanbenito.  Thomas  Lucas 
had  a  Protestant  father  and  Catholic  mother;  he  had  always 
been  a  Protestant  but  was  now  a  Catholic;  he  was  reconciled, 
with  four  years  of  galleys,  six  years  of  prison  and  sanbenito,  and 
was  never  to  leave  Lima.  William  Hilles  was  but  17  years  old; 
he  had  been  a  Protestant  but  was  now  a  Catholic;  he  was  recon- 
ciled, with  six  years  of  galleys  and  perpetual  prison  and  sanbenito.1 
Cavendish,  it  may  be  added,  captured  a  treasure-ship,  imitated 
Drake  in  circumnavigating  the  globe  and  was  knighted  by  Queen 
Elizabeth. 

More  disastrous  was  the  expedition  under  Richard  Hawkins, 
which  sailed  from  Plymouth  in  July,  1593,  with  three  vessels,  of 
which  one  was  wrecked  and  one  returned.  Hawkins  cast  anchor 
at  Valparaiso,  April  24,  1594,  where  he  captured  four  little  vessels 
and  ransomed  a  larger  one.  When  he  sailed,  the  corregidor 
manned  one  of  the  abandoned  barks  and  despatched  it  to  Callao 
with  news  of  the  corsairs.  It  made  the  voyage  in  fifteen  days, 
enabling  the  Viceroy,  Hurtado  de  Mendoza,  to  fit  out  a  squadron 
under  his  nephew  Beltran  de  Castro,  who  encountered  Hawkins, 
July  2,  in  the  Bay  of  Atacames,  near  Quito.  After  a  desperate 
fight,  Hawkins  surrendered  under  promise  of  treatment  as  prison- 
ers of  war,  and  the  extraordinary  rejoicings  with  which  the  news 
of  the  victory  were  received  in  Lima  are  a  measure  of  the  terror 
excited  by  these  dauntless  sea-rovers.  The  terms  of  capitulation 
were  scandalously  violated;  of  the  seventy-five  prisoners  taken, 

1  Medina,  Chile,  I,  371-80. 


PROTESTANTS  417 

sixty-two  were  sent  to  the  galleys  at  Cartagena,  and  thirteen 
were  brought  to  Lima,  where  the  Inquisition  claimed  them,  on 
information  that  they  were  heretics,  and  they  entered  the  secret 
prison,  December  4,  1594.  Possibly  it  may  have  been  the  irregu- 
larity attaching  to  the  infraction  of  the  terms  of  surrender  that 
hastened  the  trials,  for  eight  of  the  prisoners  appeared  in  the 
auto  of  December  17, 1595,  together  with  seven  other  Englishmen, 
captured  at  la  Yaguana  and  forwarded  from  Santo  Domingo. 
There  were  no  martyrs  among  them.  All  professed  conversion 
and  were  reconciled  with  various  terms  of  reclusion  except  one, 
William  Leigh,  who  was  sentenced  to  six  years  of  galleys  and 
perpetual  irremissible  prison.1 

Richard  Hawkins,  whose  trial  ended  July' 17,  1595,  was  too 
sick  to  appear  in  the  auto  and  was  transferred  to  the  Jesuit  college. 
His  chivalrous  bearing  won  for  him  general  good  will,  and  on  his 
recovery  he  was  placed  at  the  disposition  of  the  viceroy  who  was 
earnestly  desirous  that  the  terms  of  surrender  should  be  observed. 
There  was  correspondence  on  the  subject.  The  Suprema  wrote, 
October  5,  1595,  to  suspend  the  sequestrations  of  the  Englishmen, 
and  in  future  not  to  sequestrate  in  such  cases,  for  soldiers  ought 
not  to  be  deprived  of  the  spoils  won  from  their  enemies.  The 
tribunal,  it  said,  was  not  to  interfere  in  the  cases  of  those  sent  to 
the  galleys  at  Cartagena,  but,  as  to  Hawkins  and  his  comrades, 
they  were  to  be  delivered  to  the  viceroy,  without  proceeding 
further  in  their  cases  and,  when  they  were  fully  instructed  in 
the  faith,  it  was  to  do  justice,  proceeding  in  their  cases  with  much 
care  and  consideration.  These  instructions  were  of  course  too 
late,  and  in  reply  the  tribunal  asked  whether  their  sanbenitos 
should  be  removed  from  the  churches  and  whether,  in  case  they 
relapsed,  they  should  be  subject  to  relaxation.  The  conclusion 
reached  was  that  the  sanbenitos  were  to  be  removed,  the  reclusion 
revoked,  the  sequestrations  restored  and  that  they  were  not  sub- 
ject to  the  penalties  of  relapse  for  reincidence.  The  succeeding 
viceroy,  Velasco,  desired  to  send  them  all  to  Spain,  but  this  was 

1  Medina,  Chile,  I,  381;  Lima,  I,  305-7. 
27 


418  PERU 

opposed  by  the  tribunal  because  their  penances  had  not  been  com- 
pleted ;  Hawkins  ought  also  to  be  kept  on  account  of  his  knowledge 
of  the  navigation  of  those  seas.  The  last  information  concerning 
them  occurs  in  a  letter  of  the  Royal  Audiencia,  May  21,  1607, 
showing  that  they  had  passed  out  of  the  hands  of  the  tribunal. 
It  says  that  the  Viceroys  Canete  and  Velasco  had  sent  to  Spain 
all  those  captured  in  1594  except  Richard  Hawkins,  Captain 
John  Ellis,  Hugh  Carnix  (Charnock  ?)  and  Richard  Davis,  who 
were  kept  because  they  were  experienced  seamen  and  Davis 
was  useful  in  the  position  assigned  to  him.  Now  permission  has 
been  given  to  them  to  sail  in  the  outgoing  fleet,  consigned  to  the 
Contratacion  of  Seville.1  We  know  that  Hawkins  eventually 
reached  England  and  was  knighted. 

In  time  there  came  a  recognition  of  the  rights  of  prisoners  of 
war,  even  though  they  were  heretics  and  were  claimed  by  the 
Inquisition.  In  the  auto  of  December  21,  1625,  there  appeared 
Pieter  Jan  of  Delft,  who  had  been  captured  and  condemned  to 
death  as  a  pirate,  though  the  sentence  was  not  executed.  He 
refused  to  be  converted  and  was  sent  to  the  galleys,  but  was  sub- 
sequently liberated  under  a  royal  c£dula  as  a  prisoner  of  war. 
Fanaticism,  however,  was  difficult  to  extinguish.  When,  about 
1650,  the  Dutch  endeavored  to  establish  themselves  at  Valdivia, 
Viceroy  Mancera  sent  a  well-equipped  fleet  and  army  to  drive 
them  out.  The  captain  of  the  first  vessel  that  reached  there,  on 
learning  that  the  Dutch  commander  had  died  and  been  buried, 
caused  the  corpse  to  be  dug  up  and  burnt.  From  the  absence  in 
the  subsequent  records  of  cases  of  prisoners  of  war,  however,  it 
is  safe  to  assume  that  by  this  time  the  barbarity  of  giving  them 
the  alternative  of  conversion  or  the  stake  had  been  abandoned. 
There  was,  it  is  true,  an  intervention  of  the  tribunal  in  the  case 
of  the  Dutch  ship  St.  Louis,  captured  at  Coquimbo  in  1725,  but 

1  Medina,  Chile,  I,  385-90. 

The  question  as  to  the  ownership  of  confiscations  made  on  heretic  prisoners 
was  a  nice  one.  When  some  Englishmen  were  captured  in  Vallano  the  tribunal 
laid  claim  to  the  gold  that  was  taken  with  them.  How  the  dispute  was  settled 
does  not  appear.— Archive  nacional  de  Lima,  Protocolo  223,  Exp"  5270. 


JUDAISM  419 

it  was  not  unreasonable.  The  fiscal  Calderon,  learning  that 
among  the  prisoners  there  were  French  Huguenots  and  Dutch 
heretics  and  Jews,  and  that  the  Viceroy  Castelfuerte  thought  of 
utilizing  the  sailors  on  his  own  ships,  represented  to  the  tribunal 
the  grave  dangers  of  such  a  course,  when  the  Inquisitor  Gutierrez 
de  Cevallos,  induced  the  viceroy  to  abandon  the  plan  and  to  bring 
to  Lima  about  a  hundred  who  had  been  left  sick  at  Coquimbo.1 
As  none  of  them  appeared  in  the  succeeding  auto  it  is  inferable 
that  they  were  not  subjected  to  prosecution  for  heresy. 

The  most  serious  business  of  the  tribunal,  in  the  line  of  its 
proper  functions,  was  with  the  apostasy  of  the  Jewish  New  Chris- 
tians. From  the  very  foundation  of  the  colonies,  as  we  have  seen 
in  the  preceding  chapter,  restrictions  were  laid  on  the  emigration 
of  Converses  and  a  law  of  1543,  preserved  in  the  Recopilacion, 
orders  that  search  be  made  for  all  descendants  of  Jews  who  were 
to  be  rigorously  expelled.2  In  spite,  however,  of  the  jealous  care 
observed  to  preserve  the  colonies  from  all  danger  of  Jewish  infec- 
tion, the  commercial  attractions  were  so  powerful  that  the  New 
Christians  eluded  all  precautions.  At  first,  however,  they  occu- 
pied but  a  small  portion  of  the  energies  of  the  tribunal.  It  is 
true  that  among  the  earliest  denunciations  received,  in  1570,  were 
those  of  the  Licenciate  Juan  Alvarez,  a  physician,  and  of  his 
brother-in-law  Alonso  Alvarez  with  his  wife,  children  and  servants, 
for  Judaism,  but  as  their  names  are  absent  from  the  subsequent 
auto  it  is  presumable  that  they  were  found  innocent.3  The  first 
appearance  of  Jews  is  in  the  auto  of  October  29,  1581,  when 
Manuel  Lopez,  a  Portuguese,  was  reconciled  with  confiscation  and 
perpetual  prison,  and  Diego  de  la  Rosa,  described  as  a  native  of 
Quito,  was  required  to  abjure  de  levi  and  was  exiled — showing 
that  the  evidence  against  him  was  very  dubious.4  After  this 
there  are  none  until  the  great  auto  of  April  5,  1592,  in  which  there 
were  two,  Nicholas  Morin,  a  Frenchman,  and  Francisco  Diaz, 


1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  33;  Chile  I,  366,  369.         2  Recop.,  Lib.  vn,  Tit.  v,  ley  29. 
1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  29.  *  Ibidem,  p.  157. — Palma,  Afiales,  p.  21. 


420 

a  Portuguese,  the  former  required  to  abjure  de  levi  and  the  latter 
reconciled.1 

The  conquest  of  Portugal,  in  1580,  had  led  to  a  large  emigra- 
tion to  Castile,  where  Portuguese  soon  became  synonymous  with 
Judaizer,  and  this  was  beginning  to  make  itself  manifest  in  the 
colonies.  The  auto  of  December  17,  1595,  gave  impressive  evi- 
dence of  this.  Five  Portuguese — Juan  Mendez,  Antonio  Nunez, 
Juan  Lopez,  Francisco  Baez  and  Manuel  Rodriguez — were  recon- 
ciled. Another,  Herman  Jorje,  had  died  during  trial  and  his 
memory  was  not  prosecuted.  There  were  also  four  martyrs. 
Jorje  Nunez  denied  until  he  was  tied  upon  the  rack;  he  then  con- 
fessed and  refused  to  be  converted,  but  after  his  sentence  of  relaxa- 
tion was  read  he  weakened  and  was  strangled  before  burning. 
Francisco  Rodriguez  endured  torture  without  confessing;  when 
threatened  with  repetition  he  endeavored  unsuccessfully  to  com- 
mit suicide;  he  was  voted  to  relaxation  with  torture  in  caput 
alienum,  and  under  it  he  accused  several  persons  but  revoked  at 
ratification.  He  was  pertinacious  to  the  last  and  was  burnt 
alive.  Juan  Ferndndez  was  relaxed,  although  insane ;  the  Suprema 
expressed  doubts  whether  he  had  intelligence  enough  to  render 
him  responsible.  Pedro  de  Contreras  had  been  tortured  for  con- 
fession and  again  in  caput  alienum;  he  denied  Judaism  through- 
out and  was  relaxed  as  a  negative;  at  the  auto  he  manifested  great 
devotion  to  a  crucifix  and  presumably  was  strangled ;  in  all  proba- 
bility he  was  really  a  Christian.2 

This  bloody  work  affords  a  foretaste  of  what  was  to  come. 
At  the  auto  of  December  10, 1600,  there  were  fourteen  Portuguese 
Judaizers.  Twelve  of  them  had  professed  conversion  and  were 
reconciled;  with  two,  convictions  were  too  strong  and  they  were 
burnt  alive — Duarte  Nunez  de  Cea  and  Baltasar  Lucena,  whose 
last  words  were  that  he  denied  Christ.8  The  auto  of  March  13, 
1605,  exhibited  sixteen  Judaizers  reconciled  in  person  and  one 
in  effigy.  Six  who  had  fled  were  burnt  in  effigy  and  three  less 


1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  297.— Palma,  p.  49.          »  Medina,  Lima,  I,  305,  307-10. 
1  Ibidem,  I,  321-23. 


JUDAISM  421 

fortunate  were  burnt  in  person.  Besides  these  was  Antonio 
Correa  who,  during  his  trial,  was  converted  by  the  inspiration  of 
God;  he  was  reconciled  with  three  years  in  prison,  which  he 
served  in  the  convent  of  la  Merced  and  then  was  sent  to  Spain, 
dying,  in  1622,  as  a  fraile  in  Ossuna,  in  the  odor  of  sanctity, 
which  has  rendered  him  the  subject  of  several  biographies.1 

The  auto  of  June  1,  1608,  afforded  but  one  case,  and  that  an 
unusual  one — Domingo  Lopez,  tried  for  Judaism  and  acquitted. 
This  may  be  explained  by  the  fact  that  the  Portuguese  New 
Christians  had  purchased,  in  1604,  a  general  pardon  in  Spain, 
which  reached  Peru  in  1605  and  for  a  time  repressed  inquisitorial 
activity  in  this  direction.  In  1610  there  was  a  noteworthy  case 
of  Manuel  Ramos,  one  of  the  fugitives  who  had  been  burnt  in 
effigy  in  1605.  He  had  been  captured  and  on  being  tried  was 
now  acquitted.2  In  an  auto  of  June  17,  1612,  there  were  five 
reconciliations  for  Judaism.3  From  this  time  for  some  years 
there  were  only  scattering  cases.  Possibly  the  terrible  energy 
manifested  by  the  tribunal  had  served  as  a  deterrent  and  checked 
the  Portuguese  influx,  but  if  so  the  impression  was  but  tempo- 
rary. We  have  seen  (p.  337)  the  complaints  that  arose  about  this 
time  concerning  the  Portuguese  immigration  by  way  of  Brazil 
and  Buenos  Ayres.  This  increased  greatly  when,  in  1618,  a 
Portuguese  inquisitor  came  to  Rio  de  Janeiro,  published  an 
Edict  of  Faith  and  then  in  a  few  days  made  many  arrests  and 
sequestrated  property  to  the  amount  of  more  than  200,000  pesos. 
The  frightened  Judaizers  sought  refuge  in  Spanish  territory  and 
kept  the  commissioner  at  Buenos  Ayres,  Francisco  de  Trejo,  in  a 
state  of  continual  anxiety.  He  reported,  January  15,  1619,  that 
since  the  new  governor,  Diego  Martin,  had  come  the  visitas  de 
navws  had  been  interrupted  and  he  asked  for  such  positive  instruc- 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  337-9.     It  must  be  borne  in  mind  in  all  these  cases  that 
"reconciliation"  to  the  Church  entailed  confiscation  and  was  usually  accompanied 
with  other  penalties  more  or  less  severe  according  to  the  record  of  the  culprit  and 
the  readiness  with  which  he  had  confessed  and  recanted  as  indicative  of  the  sin- 
cerity of  his  conversion.     There  might  be  prison  and  sanbenito  for  a  term  or  for 
life,  scourging  or  the  galleys. 

2  Ibidem,  p.  341,  347.  '  Palma,  Anales,  p.  31. 


422  PERU 

tions  that  the  authorities  should  understand  that  no  foreigners 
could  land  until  he  had  inspected  the  ship.  His  protests  were 
unavailing.  By  the  middle  of  April  there  had  arrived  eight  ships 
bringing  Portuguese  passengers,  who  had  paid  Castilians  to  take 
them  as  servants  so  that  they  might  enter.  Governor  Martin  was 
alert  and  threw  them  in  prison,  in  order  to  send  them  back,  but 
many  managed  to  get  through.  Some  of  them  were  married  in 
prison  to  Buenos  Ayres  women,  so  as  to  give  them  a  standing  in 
the  community;  others  broke  gaol  and  took  refuge  in  convents, 
when  the  frailes  refused  to  surrender  them,  giving  security  to  the 
governor  that  they  would  prove  themselves  to  be  not  of  the 
prohibited  class,  whereupon  they  scattered  to  the  interior  and 
the  man  who  had  furnished  the  security  calmly  paid  the  forfeit. 
It  is  true  that  forty  of  them  were  sent  back,  but  it  was  evidently 
impossible  to  exclude  these  proscribed  and  hunted  beings  who 
were  so  persistent  and  resourceful.  The  tribunal,  in  fact,  was 
apparently  not  averse  to  obtaining  fresh  material  for  condem- 
nation and  confiscation,  for  it  did  not  authorize  the  commis- 
sioner to  arrest  suspects  and  send  them  back,  but  only  to  compile 
information  about  them  and  forward  it  to  Lima,  keeping  advised 
as  to  their  destinations  so  that  they  could  be  seized  when  wanted.1 
The  immigration  continued  and,  in  1623,  the  tribunal  called  the 
attention  of  the  Suprema  to  the  increasing  numbers  of  Portu- 
guese, who  were  spreading  throughout  the  interior  provinces. 
This  continued  and,  in  1635,  the  fiscal  of  the  Audiencia  of  Charcas 
represented  forcibly  to  the  king  the  evil  of  the  innumerable  Jews 
who  had  entered  and  were  constantly  coming.2 

The  tribunal  resumed  its  labors  and,  by  December  21,  1625,  it 
was  ready  with  an  auto  in  which  ten  Judaizers  were  reconciled. 
Two  had  committed  suicide  in  prison  and  were  burnt  with  their 
bones.  Two  more  were  relaxed — Juan  Acuna  de  Norofia,  who 
was  described  as  impenitent  and  must  have  been  burnt  alive,  and 
Diego  de  Andrada  who  gave  signs  of  repentance  at  the  last  and 
was  probably  strangled  before  burning.8 

1  Medina,  La  Plata,  155-61.         '  Ibidem,  164-66.        » Medina,  Lima,  II,  27-31. 


JUDAISM  423 

In  1626  there  commenced  a  trial  which  illustrates  forcibly 
the  inexorable  discipline  of  the  Church,  rendering  it  the  supreme 
duty  of  the  Christian  to  persecute  and  destroy  all  heresy.  Fran- 
cisco Maldonado  de  Silva  was  a  surgeon  of  high  repute  in  Con- 
cepcion  de  Chile.  He  was  of  Portuguese  descent.  His  father 
had  suffered  in  the  Inquisition,  had  been  reconciled  and  brought 
up  his  children,  two  girls  and  a  boy,  as  Christians.  Francisco 
was  a  good  Catholic  until,  at  the  age  of  18,  he  chanced  to  read 
the  Scrutinium  Scripturarum  of  Pablo  de  Santa  Maria,  Bishop 
of  Burgos — a  controversial  work  written  for  the  conversion  of 
Jews.1  So  far  from  confirming  him  in  the  faith  it  raised  doubts 
leading  him  to  consult  his  father,  who  told  him  to  study  the  Bible 
and  instructed  him  in  the  Law  of  Moses.  He  became  an  ardent 
convert  to  Judaism,  but  kept  his  secret  from  his  mother  and  two 
sisters  and  from  his  wife,  for  he  was  married  and  had  a  child,  and 
his  wife  was  pregnant  when  he  was  arrested.  During  her  absence, 
a  year  or  two  before,  he  had  circumcised  himself.  At  the  age  of 
35,  considering  that  his  sister  Isabel  who  was  about  33,  was 
mature  enough  for  religious  independence,  he  revealed  his  secret 
to  her  and  endeavored  to  convert  her,  but  in  vain,  and  he  was 
impervious  to  her  entreaties  to  abandon  his  faith.  They  seem 
to  have  been  tenderly  attached  to  each  other;  he  was  her  sole 
support  as  well  as  that  of  her  mother  and  sister,  but  she  could 
not  escape  the  necessity  of  communicating  the  facts  in  confession 
to  her  confessor.  The  prescriptions  of  the  Church  were  abso- 
lute; no  family  ties  relieved  one  from  the  obligation  of  denoun- 
cing heresy,  and  she  could  not  hope  for  sacramental  absolution 
without  discharging  the  duty.  We  can  picture  to  ourselves 
the  torment  of  that  agonized  soul  as  she  nerved  herself  to  the 
awful  duty  which  would  cost  her  a  lifetime  of  remorse  and  misery 


1  Pablo  de  Santa  Maria  was  originally  the  Rabbi  Selemoh  Ha-Levi,  one  of  the 
most  learned  of  Jewish  doctors.  Converted  in  1390,  he  rose  to  be  regent  of  Spain 
in  the  minority  of  Juan  II,  papal  legate  a  latere  and  bishop  successively  of  Carta- 
gena and  Burgos.  His  book  was  regarded  as  convincing  and  was  repeatedly 
printed.  Two  editions  appeared  in  Strassburg  about  1471  and  my  copy  is  of 
Burgos,  1591, 


424 

when  she  obeyed  her  confessor's  commands  and  denounced  her 
brother  to  the  Inquisition. 

The  warrant  for  his  arrest  was  issued  December  12, 1626,  and 
executed  at  Concepcion  April  29,  1627.  His  friend,  the  Domini- 
can Fray  Diego  de  Ureiia,  visited  him  in  his  place  of  confinement, 
May  2,  and  sought  to  convert  him,  but  he  was  resolved  to  die  in 
the  faith  in  which  his  father  had  died.  So  when  transferred  to 
Santiago,  the  Augustinian  Fray  Alonso  de  Almeida  made  similar 
efforts  with  like  ill-success;  he  knew  that  he  should  die  for  the 
faith,  he  had  never  spoken  to  any  one  but  his  sister  and  she  had 
betrayed  him.  He  was  received  in  Lima  July  23d  and  was  ad- 
mitted to  an  audience  the  same  day.  When  required  to  swear  on 
the  cross  he  refused,  saying  that  he  was  a  Jew  and  would  live  and 
die  as  such;  if  he  had  to  swear  it  would  be  by  the  living  God,  the 
God  of  Israel.  His  trial  went  on  through  all  the  customary 
formalities,  protracted  by  the  repeated  conferences  held  with 
theologians  who  endeavored  to  convince  him  of  his  errors. 
Eleven  of  these  were  held  without  weakening  his  pertinacity 
until,  on  January  26,  1633,  the  consulta  de  fe  unanimously  con- 
demned him  to  relaxation. 

A  long  sickness  followed,  caused  by  a  fast  of  eighty  days  which 
had  reduced  him  almost  to  a  skeleton  covered  with  sores.  On 
convalescing,  he  asked  for  another  conference,  to  solve  the  doubts 
which  he  had  drawn  up  in  writing.  It  was  held  June  26,  1634, 
and  left  him  as  pertinacious  as  ever.  Meanwhile  the  prison  was 
filling  with  Judaizers,  of  whom  a  number  had  been  discovered  in 
Lima.  He  asked  for  maize  husks  in  place  of  his  ration  of  bread, 
and  with  them  made  a  rope  by  which  he  escaped  through  a 
window  and  visited  two  neighboring  cells,  urging  the  prisoners  to 
be  steadfast  in  their  law;  they  denounced  him  and  he  made  no 
secret  of  it,  confessing  freely  what  he  had  done.  It  was  a  mercy 
of  God,  we  are  told,  that  his  prolonged  fast  had  rendered  him 
deaf,  or  he  would  have  learned  much  from  them  of  what  had  been 
going  on. 

The  tribunal   was  so  preoccupied,  with  the  numerous  trials 


JUDAISM  425 

on  foot  at  the  time,  that  Maldonado  was  left  undisturbed, 
awaiting  the  general  auto  that  was  to  follow.  We  hear  nothing 
more  until,  after  an  interval  of  four  years,  a  thirteenth  conference 
was  held  at  his  request,  November  12,  1638.  It  was  as  fruitless 
as  its  predecessors  and,  at  its  conclusion,  he  produced  two  books 
(each  of  them  of  more  than  a  hundred  leaves) ,  made  with  mar- 
vellous ingenuity  out  of  scraps  of  paper  and  written  with  ink  made 
of  charcoal  and  pens  cut  out  of  egg-shells  with  a  knife  fashioned 
from  a  nail,  which  he  said  he  delivered  up  for  the  discharge 
of  his  conscience.  Then  on  December  9th  and  10th  were  held 
two  more  conferences  in  which  his  pertinacity  remained  unshaken. 
The  long  tragedy  was  now  drawing  to  an  end  after  an  imprison- 
ment which  had  lasted  for  nearly  thirteen  years.  He  was  brought 
out  in  the  great  auto  of  January  23,  1639,  where,  when  the 
sentences  of  relaxation  were  read,  a  sudden  whirlwind  tore  away 
the  awning  and,  looking  up,  he  exclaimed  "The  God  of  Israel  does 
this  to  look  upon  me  face  to  face!"  He  was  unshrinking  to  the 
last  and  was  burnt  alive  a  true  martyr  to  his  faith.  His  two 
paper  books  were  hung  around  his  neck  to  burn  with  him  and 
assist  in  burning  him.1 

This  auto  of  1639,  the  greatest  that  had  as  yet  been  held  in  the 
New  World,  was  the  culmination  of  the  "complicidad  grande" — 
the  name  given  by  the  inquisitors  to  a  number  of  Judaizers  whom 
they  had  discovered.  As  they  described  the  situation,  in  a  report 
of  1636,  large  numbers  of  Portuguese  had  entered  the  kingdom 
by  way  of  Buenos  Ayres,  Brazil,  Mexico,  Granada  and  Puerto 
Bello,  thus  increasing  the  already  numerous  bands  of  their  com- 
patriots. They  became  masters  of  the  commerce  of  the  king- 
dom; from  brocade  to  sack-cloth,  from  diamonds  to  cumin-seed, 
everything  passed  through  their  hands;  the  Castilian  who  had  not 
a  Portuguese  partner  could  look  for  no  success  in  trade.  They 
would  buy  the  cargoes  of  whole  fleets  with  the  fictitious  credits 


1  Medina,  La  Plata,  pp.  172-97;  Lima,  II,  146. — See  also  a  paper  by  George 
Alexander  Kohut  in  Publications  of  the  Am.  Jewish  Historical  Society,  XI, 
163  (1903). 


426  PERU 

which  they  exchanged,  thus  rendering  capital  unnecessary,  and 
would  distribute  the  merchandise  throughout  the  land  by  their 
agents,  who  were  likewise  Portuguese,  and  their  capacity  devel- 
oped until,  in  1634,  they  negotiated  for  the  farming  of  the  royal 
customs. 

In  August,  1634,  Joan  de  Salazar,  a  merchant,  denounced  to 
the  Inquisition  Antonio  Cordero,  clerk  of  a  trader  from  Seville, 
because  he  refused  to  make  a  sale  on  a  Saturday.  On  another 
occasion,  going  to  his  store  on  a  Friday  morning,  he  found 
Cordero  breakfasting  on  a  piece  of  bread  and  an  apple  and,  on 
asking  him  whether  he  had  not  better  take  a  rasher  of  bacon, 
Cordero  replied  "Must  I  eat  what  my  father  and  grandfather 
never  ate?"  The  evidence  was  weak  and  no  immediate  action 
was  taken,  but,  in  October,  the  commissioners  were  instructed 
secretly  to  ascertain  and  report  the  number  of  Portuguese  in  their 
several  districts.  The  matter  rested  and,  as  nothing  new  was 
developed,  in  March,  1635,  the  evidence  against  Cordero  was  laid 
before  a  consulta  de  fe  and  it  was  resolved  to  arrest  him  secretly, 
without  sequestration,  so  that  the  hand  of  the  Inquisition  might 
not  be  apparent.  Bartolome  de  Larrea,  a  familiar,  called  on  him, 
April  2d,  under  pretence  of  settling  an  account,  and  locked  him 
in  a  room;  a  sedan-chair  was  brought,  and  he  was  conveyed  to 
the  secret  prison.  His  disappearance  excited  much  talk  and  he 
was  supposed  to  have  fled,  for  the  supposition  of  arrest  by  the 
Inquisition  was  scouted,  seeing  that  there  had  not  been  seques- 
tration. 

Cordero  confessed  at  once  that  he  was  a  Jew  and,  under  torture, 
implicated  his  employer  and  two  others.  These  were  arrested 
on  May  llth  and  the  free  employment  of  torture  obtained  the 
names  of  numerous  accomplices.  The  prisons  were  full  and  to 
empty  them  an  auto  in  the  chapel  was  hurriedly  arranged  and 
preparations  were  made  for  the  hasty  construction  of  additional 
cells.  On  August  llth,  between  12.30  and  2  o'clock,  seventeen 
arrests  were  made,  so  quietly  and  simultaneously  that  it  was  all 
effected  before  the  people  were  conscious  of  it.  These  were  among 


JUDAISM  427 

the  most  prominent  citizens  and  greatest  merchants  of  Lima, 
and  we  are  told  that  the  impression  produced  on  the  commu- 
nity was  like  the  Day  of  Judgement.  Torture  and  inquisitorial 
methods  elicited  further  information  resulting  in  additional 
arrests;  the  affrighted  Portuguese  began  to  scatter  and,  at  the 
request  of  the  tribunal,  the  Viceroy  Chinchon  prohibited  for  a 
year  any  one  to  leave  Peru  without  its  licence. 

Up  to  May  16,  1636,  the  date  of  a  report  made  to  the  Suprema, 
there  had  been  eighty-one  arrests;  there  was  evidence  against 
eighty  more  but,  for  lack  of  prison  accommodation,  their  seizure 
was  postponed.  The  old  prison  had  sixteen  cells,  nineteen  new 
ones  had  been  constructed,  then  an  adjoining  house  was  bought 
and  seventeen  more  were  fitted  up  in  it.  This  influx  of  wealthy 
prisoners  put  the  fidelity  of  the  gaolers  to  a  strain  which  it  could 
not  stand.  The  old  alcaide,  Bartolome  de  Pradeda,  excited  sus- 
picion by  buying  property  beyond  his  legitimate  means;  he  was 
investigated  and  found  to  be  selling  favors  to  those  under  his 
charge,  revealing  secrets,  permitting  communications  and  the 
like.  He  deserved  severe  punishment  but,  in  view  of  his  twenty 
years  of  service,  his  seven  children  and  his  infirm  health,  he  was 
allowed  to  ask  permission  to  retire  to  his  country  place.  He  was 
replaced  by  Diego  de  Vargas,  who  soon  had  to  be  dismissed  for 
the  same  reasons.  Joseph  Freile  was  appointed  assistant,  but 
was  soon  found  guilty  of  similar  offences  and  was  sent  to  the 
galleys.  His  successor  was  Benito  Rodriguez,  who  likewise 
succumbed  to  temptation,  but  he  was  a  familiar  and  was  only 
dropped.  Another  was  Francisco  Hurt  ado  de  Valcdzar,  who 
subsequently  appeared  in  an  auto  for  the  same  reasons. 

One  matter  which  vexed  the  souls  of  the  inquisitors  was  the 
effort  made  by  the  threatened  Portuguese  to  hide  their  property 
from  sequestration.  A  proclamation  was  issued,  ordering  all 
who  knew  of  such  matters  to  reveal  them  within  nine  days  under 
pain  of  excommunication  and  other  penalties.  This  was  success- 
ful to  some  extent,  but  the  difficulties  in  the  way  were  illustrated 
in  the  case  of  Enrique  de  Paz,  for  whom  Melchor  de  los  Reies 


428  PERU 

secreted  much  silver,  jewels  and  merchandise.  Among  other 
things  he  deposited  with  his  friend  Don  Dionisio  Manrique, 
Knight  of  Santiago,  senior  alcalde  de  corte  and  a  consultor  of 
the  tribunal,  a  quantity  of  silver  and  some  fifty  or  sixty  pieces  of 
rich  silks.  Manrique  did  not  deny  receiving  them,  but  said  that 
the  same  night  Melchor  ordered  them  taken  away  by  a  young 
man  who  was  a  stranger  to  him.  The  inquisitors  evidently  dis- 
believed the  story;  they  reported  that  they  had  unsuccessfully 
tried  friendly  methods  with  Manrique  and  asked  the  Suprema 
for  instructions. 

The  sequestration  of  so  much  property  brought  all  trade  to  a 
stand-still  and  produced  indescribable  confusion,  aggravated,  in 
1635,  by  the  consequent  failure  of  the  bank.  The  men  arrested 
had  nearly  all  the  trade  of  the  colony  in  their  hands;  they  were 
involved  in  an  infinity  of  complicated  transactions  and  suits 
sprang  up  on  all  sides.  Creditors  and  suitors  pressed  their  claims 
desperately,  fearing  that  with  delay  witnesses  might  disappear, 
in  the  widening  circle  of  arrests.  There  were  many  suits  pending 
already  in  the  Audiencia  which  were  claimed  by  the  tribunal  and 
surrendered  to  it.  It  was  puzzled  by  the  new  business  thus 
thrown  upon  it;  to  a  suit  there  had  to  be  two  parties,  but  the 
prisoners  could  not  plead,  so  it  appointed  Manuel  de  Monte 
Alegre  as  their  "defensor"  to  appear  for  them,  and  it  went  on 
hearing  and  deciding  complicated  civil  suits  while  conducting  the 
prosecutions  for  heresy.  Mondays  and  Thursdays  were  assigned 
for  civil  business,  and  every  afternoon,  from  3  P.M.  until  dark,  was 
devoted  to  examination  of  documents.  The  inquisitors  claimed 
that  they  pushed  forward  strenuously  in  settling  accounts  and 
paying  debts,  for  otherwise  all  commerce  would  be  destroyed  to 
the  irreparable  damage  of  the  Republic,  which  was  already  ex- 
hausted in  so  many  ways.  This  did  not  suit  the  Suprema,  which, 
by  letters  of  October  22d  and  November  9,  1635,  forbade  the 
surrender  of  any  sequestrated  or  confiscated  property,  no  matter 
what  evidence  was  produced  of  ownership  or  claims,  without 
first  consulting  it.  This  exacting  payment  of  all  debts  and  post- 


JUDAISM  429 

poning  payment  of  claims  threatened  general  bankruptcy  when 
the  rich  merchants  were  arrested,  for  their  aggregate  liabilities 
amounted  to  eight  hundred  thousand  pesos,  which  was  estimated 
as  equal  to  the  whole  capital  of  Lima.  To  avert  this,  some 
payments  were  made,  but  only  on  the  strength  of  competent 
security  being  furnished. 

In  the  excitement  of  the  hour  and  the  mad  rush  for  arresting 
everybody  who  might  be  an  apostate,  much  injustice  was  com- 
mitted which  aggravated  the  confusion.  Thus  on  May  8,  1636, 
Santiago  del  Castillo,  was  arrested,  a  merchant  whose  licence  to 
sail  for  Spain  was  to  be  signed  that  afternoon.  With  him  were 
seized  fifty-five  bars  of  silver  and  ten  thousand  pesos  in  coin; 
he  was  administrator  of  customs  and  it  was  reckoned  fortunate 
that  over  thirty  thousand  pesos  belonging  to  the  king  had  been 
handed  over  so  that  it  could  be  sent  by  the  fleet.  He  was  receiver 
in  the  bankruptcy  of  Joan  de  la  Queba,  and  as  such  held  about 
seven  thousand  pesos  which  were  given  to  Judge  Martin  de  Arriola 
to  be  apportioned  among  eight  hundred  creditors.  Castillo's 
estate  was  large  but  he  was  involved  in  suits,  besides  holding 
considerable  property  belonging  to  others,  and  claims  began  at 
once  to  be  presented.  All  this  was  wholly  superfluous,  for  on 
October  23,  1637,  he  was  discharged  as  innocent  and  the  seques- 
tration was  lifted.  Alonso  Sdnchez  Chaparro  was  liberated, 
February  9,  1637,  and  more  than  sixty  thousand  pesos  were 
returned  to  him.  There  were  several  other  acquittals,  and  a 
number  of  cases  were  suspended  involving  the  release  of  large 
sums  which  ought  never  to  have  been  tied  up. 

Meanwhile  the  trials  of  the  accused  were  pushed  forward  as 
rapidly  as  the  perplexities  of  the  situation  admitted.  Torture 
was  not  spared.  Murcia  de  Luna,  a  woman  of  27,  died  under  it. 
Antonio  de  Acuna  was  subjected  to  it  for  three  hours  and,  when  he 
was  carried  out,  Alcaide  Pradeda  described  his  arms  as  being 
torn  to  pieces.  Progress  was  impeded,  however,  by  the  devices 
of  the  prisoners,  who  were  in  hopes  that  influences  at  work  in 
Spain  would  secure  a  general  pardon  like  that  of  1604.  With 


430  PERU 

this  object  they  revoked  their  confessions  and  their  accusations 
of  each  other,  giving  rise  to  endless  complications.  Some  of  the 
latter  revocations,  however,  were  genuine  and  were  adhered  to, 
even  through  the  torture  which  was  freely  used  in  these  cases. 
Besides  this,  to  cast  doubt  on  the  whole  affair,  they  accused  the 
innocent  and  even  Old  Christians,  which  accounts  for  the  acquit- 
tals mentioned  above.  The  inquisitors  add  that  they  abstained 
in  many  cases  from  making  arrests,  when  the  testimony  was 
insufficient  and  the  parties  were  not  Portuguese. 

The  tribunal  was  manned  with  four  inquisitors,  who  struggled 
resolutely  through  this  complicated  mass  of  business,  and  at 
length  were  ready  to  make  public  the  results  of  their  labors  in 
the  auto  of  January  23,  1639.  This  was  celebrated  with  unex- 
ampled pomp  and  ostentation,  for  now  money  was  abundant 
and  the  opportunity  of  making  an  impression  on  the  popular 
mind  was  not  to  be  lost.  During  the  previous  night,  when  their 
sentences  were  made  known  to  those  who  were  to  be  relaxed,  two 
of  them,  Enrique  de  Paz  and  Manuel  de  Espinosa,  professed  con- 
version; the  inquisitors  came  and  examined  them,  a  consulta 
was  assembled  and  they  were  admitted  to  reconciliation.  There 
was  great  rivalry  among  men  of  position  for  the  honor  of  accom- 
panying the  penitents  and  Don  Salvadoro  Velazquez,  one  of  the 
principal  Indians,  sargento  mayor  of  the  Indian  militia,  begged  to 
be  allowed  to  carry  one  of  the  effigies,  which  he  did  in  resplendent 
uniform.  Conspicuous  in  a  place  of  honor  in  the  procession  were 
the  seven  who  had  been  acquitted,  richly  dressed,  mounted  on 
white  horses  and  carrying  palms  of  victory. 

Besides  the  Judaizers  there  were  a  bigamist  and  five  women 
penanced  for  sorcery.  There  was  also  the  alcaide's  assistant 
Valcdzar,  who  was  deprived  of  his  familiarship  and  was  exiled 
for  four  years.  Juan  de  Canelas  Albarran,  the  occupant  of  a 
house  adjoining  the  prison,  who  had  permitted  an  opening 
through  the  walls  for  communications,  received  a  hundred  lashes 
and  five  years  of  exile,  and  Ana  Maria  Gonzalez,  who  was  concerned 
in  the  matter,  had  also  a  hundred  lashes  and  four  years  of  exile. 


JUDAISM  431 

Of  the  Judaizers  there  were  seven  who  escaped  with  abjuration 
de  vehementi,  various  penalties  and  fines  aggregating  eight  hun- 
dred pesos.  There  were  forty-four  reconciled  with  punishments 
varied  according  to  their  deserts.  Those  who  had  confessed 
readily  as  to  themselves  and  others  were  let  off  with  confiscation 
and  deportation  to  Spain.  Those  who  prevaricated  or  gave  trou- 
ble had,  in  addition,  lashes  or  galleys  or  both.  Of  these  there 
were  twenty-one,  the  aggregate  lashes  amounting  to  four  thousand 
and  the  years  of  galleys  to  a  hundred  and  six,  besides  two  con- 
demnations for  life.  In  addition  to  these  were  the  mother  of  the 
Murcia  de  Luna  who  died  under  torture,  Dona  Mayor  de  Luna, 
a  woman  of  high  social  position,  and  her  daughter  Dona  Isabel  de 
Luna,  a  girl  of  18,  who,  for  endeavoring  to  communicate  with 
each  other  in  prison,  were  sentenced  to  a  hundred  lashes  through 
the  streets,  naked  from  the  waist  up.  There  was  also  one  recon- 
ciliation in  effigy  of  a  culprit  who  had  died  in  prison. 

There  were  eleven  relaxations  in  person  and  the  effigy  of  one 
who  had  committed  suicide  during  trial.  Of  the  eleven,  seven 
are  said  to  have  died  pertinacious  and  impenitent  and  therefore 
presumably  were  burnt  alive,  true  martyrs  to  their  belief.  Of 
these  there  were  two  especially  notable — Maldonado  whose  case 
has  been  mentioned  above,  and  Manuel  Bautista  Perez.  The 
latter  was  the  leader  and  chief  among  the  Portuguese,  who  styled 
him  the  capitan  grande.  He  was  the  greatest  merchant  in  Lima 
and  his  fortune  was  popularly  estimated  at  half  a  million  pesos. 
It  was  in  his  house  that  were  held  the  secret  meetings  in  which 
he  joined  in  the  learned  theological  discussions,  but  outwardly 
he  was  a  zealous  Christian  and  had  priests  to  educate  his  children ; 
he  was  greatly  esteemed  by  the  clergy  who  dedicated  to  him 
their  literary  effusions  in  terms  of  the  warmest  adulation.  He 
owned  rich  silver  mines  in  Huarochiri  and  two  extensive  plan- 
tations; his  confiscated  house  has  since  been  known  as  the  casa 
de  Pilatos,  and  his  ostentatious  mode  of  life  may  be  judged  by 
the  fact  that  when  his  carriage  was  sold  by  the  tribunal  it  fetched 
thirty-four  hundred  pesos.  He  had  endeavored  to  commit  suicide 


432  PERU 

by  stabbing  himself,  but  he  never  faltered  at  the  end.  He  list- 
ened  proudly  to  his  sentence  and  died  impenitent,  telling  the 
executioner  to  do  his  duty.  There  was  one  other  prisoner  who 
did  not  appear.  Enrique  Jorje  Tavares,  a  youth  of  18,  was  among 
those  arrested  in  August,  1635.  He  denied  under  torture  and 
after  various  alternations  became  permanently  insane,  for  which 
reason  his  case  was  suspended  in  1639. 

The  next  day  the  mob  of  Lima  enjoyed  the  further  sensation  of 
the  scourging  through  the  streets.  These  exhibitions  always 
attracted  a  large  crowd,  in  which  there  were  many  horsemen  who 
thus  had  a  better  view,  while  boys  commonly  pelted  the  bigamists 
and  sorceresses  who  were  the  usual  patients.  On  this  occasion 
the  tribunal  issued  a  proclamation  forbidding  horses  or  carriages 
in  the  streets  through  which  the  procession  passed,  and  any 
pelting  of  the  penitents  under  pain,  for  Spaniards,  of  banishment 
to  Chile,  and  for  Indians  and  negroes,  of  a  hundred  lashes.  There 
were  twenty-nine  sufferers  in  all ;  they  were  marched  in  squads  of 
ten,  guarded  by  soldiers  and  familiars,  while  the  executioners 
plied  the  scourges,  and  the  brutalizing  spectacle  passed  off  without 
disturbance,  and  with  the  pious  wish  of  the  tribunal  that  it 
would  please  God  to  make  it  serve  as  a  warning.1 

The  holocaust  had  been  duly  offered  to  a  Savior  of  love  and 
mercy;  the  martyrs  had  sealed  in  flame  and  torment  their  adher- 
ence to  the  Ancient  Faith,  and  the  mob  had  had  its  spectacle. 
Satisfied  with  the  results  of  their  pious  labors  for  the  greater 
glory  of  God,  the  inquisitors  calmly  went  forward  to  gather  in 
the  gleanings  from  the  ruined  commerce  and  industry  of  the 
kingdom,  to  retain  what  they  could  for  themselves  and  to  ac- 
count for  as  little  as  they  might  to  their  superiors.  The  process 
was  long  and  complex  and  it  was  years  before  all  the  tangled 
skeins  were  ravelled  out,  and  the  clamorous  creditors  of  the 
victims  had  their  claims  satisfied  or  rejected. 


1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  47-168,  176.  Medina  prints  the  Relation  of  the  auto  by 
Fernando  Montesinos.  A  brief  abstract  of  it  is  given  by  Pellicer,  Avisos  hist6ricos, 
under  date  of  Feb.  7,  1640  (Valladares,  Semanario  erudite,  XXXI,  129). 


JUDAISM  433 

There  were  still  some  remnants  of  the  fla  hated  Portuguese  to 
be  dealt  with.  After  the  auto,  seven  cases,  which  had  been  pend- 
ing for  three  years  or  more,  were  suspended,  followed,  in  1639  and 
1640,  by  others  of  reconciliation  or  suspension.  In  1641  there  was 
an  auto,  November  17th,  in  which  three  Judaizers  were  reconciled 
and  seven  others  sentenced  to  confiscation  and  a  hundred  lashes 
apiece.  There  still  remained  of  the  "  complicidad  grande"  Manuel 
Hemiquez,  who  had  been  arrested  in  December,  1635,  and  had 
confessed  under  torture,  after  which  he  revoked,  and  several 
extravagances  led  to  his  being  thought  crazy,  but  in  1647  he  was 
condemned  to  the  stake.  The  tribunal  however  waited  for  other 
victims  to  justify  the  expense  of  an  auto  and,  in  1656,  he  was 
still  lingering  in  prison;  he  was  not  burnt  until  1664  in  company 
with  the  effigy  of  Murcia  de  Luna,  the  victim  of  torture.  The 
Inquisition,  in  fact,  had  passed  its  apogee  and  had  become  inert 
as  its  wealth  increased.  In  1648  it  reported  that  its  only  prisoner 
was  Manuel  Henrfquez,  who  was  awaiting  the  execution  of  his 
sentence.1 

This  was  not  because  the  Portuguese  had  been  exterminated. 
They  were  still  numerous,  although  the  revolt  of  Portugal,  in  1640, 
had  rendered  them,  if  not  as  yet  foreigners,  at  least  citizens  whose 
loyalty  might  well  be  suspect.  Political  as  well  as  religious 
motives  may  therefore  be  ascribed  to  the  action  of  the  Viceroy 
Pedro  de  Toledo,  Marquis  of  Mancera,  at  the  instance  of  the 
Audiencia,  under  impulsion  of  the  tribunal,  when,  in  1646,  he 
issued  an  edict  that  all  Portuguese  should  present  themselves 
with  their  arms  and  should  leave  the  country.  More  than  six 
thousand  are  said  to  have  come  forward  and  by  payment  of  a 
large  sum  to  have  obtained  a  revocation  of  the  measure — a 
venal  transaction  which  formed  the  basis  of  one  of  the  accusations 
brought  against  Mancera  in  the  residencies  or  customary  investi- 
gation at  the  close  of  his  term  of  office.2 

Either  the  tribunal  had  become  too  indolent  for  active  work, 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  169,  175,  177-8.— Palma,  Afiales,  p.  41. 

2  Palma,  Afiales,  pp.  38-9. 
28 


434  PERU 

or  the  Portuguese  population  had  been  cowed  into  sincere  accept- 
ance of  Catholicism,  for  we  hear  little  subsequently  of  Judaism. 
It  was  not  that  sensitiveness  to  Jewish  observances  had  decreased, 
for  in  1666  Juan  Leon  Cisneros  was  accused  of  buying  scaleless 
fish  on  Fridays  and  of  not  sending  his  children  to  school  on  the 
Sabbath,  for  which  suspicious  actions  he  was  sentenced  to  abju- 
ration.1 From  that  time  there  is  a  long  interval  and  even  the 
ferocious  recrudescence  of  persecution  in  Spain,  during  the  first 
third  of  the  eighteenth  century,  awoke  but  a  feeble  echo  in  Peru. 
The  next  two  cases  that  present  themselves  are  highly  signi- 
ficant of  inquisitorial  methods.  About  1720  Alvaro  Rodriguez 
was  prosecuted  for  Judaism  but  died  in  prison  and  his  case  was 
never  concluded.  Still  his  sequestrated  property,  amounting 
to  fourteen  thousand  pesos,  was  remitted  to  the  Suprema, 
although  the  Inquisition  had  no  claim  on  it,  for  he  had  left  no 
relatives  in  Peru  and  Philip  V  had  ordered  the  seizure  of  all 
Portuguese  property  as  a  measure  of  retaliation  in  the  relations 
between  the  two  countries.  The  other  case  was  that  of  Don 
Teodoro  Candioti,  a  Levantine  Christian,  who  had  married  in 
Lima.  He  was  arrested,  probably  somewhat  before  1722,  on 
suspicion  of  Judaism  arising  from  his  keeping  the  day  before 
Christmas  as  a  fast,  according  to  the  custom  of  his  country.  He 
had  also  said  that  St.  Moses  was  a  great  saint  and  as  such  was 
venerated  in  his  land.  There  was  some  talk  of  his  being  circum- 
cised, but  this  was  unfounded.  He  died  in  prison,  May  19,  1726, 
making  a  most  Christian  end  and  saying  that  salvation  was  to 
be  had  by  keeping  the  law  of  God,  through  the  grace  of  Jesus 
Christ.  His  body  was  thrust  into  one  of  the  graves  of  the  tribunal 
but  the  Suprema  ordered,  November  24,  1728,  that  his  bones 
should  be  secretly  transferred  and  buried  with  Christian  rites  in 
the  parish  church  and  that  an  entry  be  made  in  the  parish  register 
of  his  burial  as  of  the  day  of  his  death,  without  stating  that  he 
had  died  in  prison,  and  further  that  a  certificate  of  no  disability 
be  given  to  his  widow  and  children,  including  capacity  to  hold 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  189-90. 


JUDAISM  435 

offices  in  the  Inquisition.  Evidently  the  falsification  of  church 
records  was  a  matter  of  course  when  the  injustice  of  the  Inqui- 
sition was  to  be  concealed.  The  tribunal  itself  had  still  less 
scruple.  It  replied,  August  26,  1729,  that  it  had  already,  on 
December  23,  1727,  reported  the  translation  of  the  remains  to 
the  church  of  the  Dominican  college  of  St.  Thomas;  another 
exhumation  seemed  unnecessary,  but  it  had  had  the  required 
entry  made  in  the  parish  register.  The  widow  had  presented 
the  genealogies  of  her  two  sons,  Don  Antonio  and  Don  Juan 
Candioti,  asking  that  they  be  made  familiars  and,  as  the  viceroy 
was  much  interested  in  the  family,  the  request  had  been  granted.1 
This  case  brings  before  us  one  of  the  deplorable  results  of  the 
system  of  secrecy;  a  husband  and  father  disappears  into  the  prison; 
he  dies,  and  his  family  only  learn  his  fate  after  seven  years  of 
suspense. 

A  more  flagrant  case  was  that  of  Dona  Ana  de  Castro,  a  married 
woman  of  good  social  position  but  of  dubious  character,  as  she 
was  reported  to  have  sold  her  favors  to  one  of  the  viceroys  and 
to  many  of  the  rich  colonial  nobles.  Accused  of  Judaism,  she 
persistently  denied;  when,  in  1731,  her  case  was  reported  to  the 
Suprema,  she  had  been  voted  to  relaxation  with  preliminary 
torture,  to  which  the  Suprema  replied,  February  4,  1732,  that  if 
the  torture  and  efforts  of  the  theologians  did  not  bring  repentance, 
the  sentence  was  to  be  executed,  but,  if  she  confessed  and  gave 
signs  of  repentance,  she  was  to  be  reconciled.  She  was  held  until 
the  solemn  public  auto  of  December  23,  1736,  when  she  was 
relaxed  to  the  secular  arm  as  a  Judaizing  Jew,  convicted,  negative 
and  pertinacious.  On  her  way  to  the  brasero  she  is  said  to  have 
shed  tears,  but  the  alguazil  mayor  paid  no  attention  to  them 
and  she  was  duly  burnt — probably  without  preliminary  strangu- 
lation. All,  apparently,  was  in  accordance  with  routine  pro- 
cedure but,  when  the  records  came  to  be  investigated  in  the  visi- 
tation of  Arenaza,  Amusquibar  reported  that  the  day  before  the 
auto  she  sought  two  audiences;  no  record  was  made  of  what 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  276-80. 


436  PERU 

occurred,  but  there  could  be  no  doubt  that  she  confessed  more 
than  enough  to  entitle  her  to  reconciliation;  even  if  she  did  not 
entirely  satisfy  the  evidence,  what  more  could  be  expected  of  a 
poor  woman  in  such  agitation  of  mind  and  ignorant  of  the  trap 
laid  for  her  by  Calderon,  who  acted  as  fiscal?  The  printed  official 
account  of  the  auto  rather  superfluously  recites  how  she  was 
notified  of  her  sentence  at  ten  o'clock  of  December  21st,  after 
which  two  theologians,  relieved  every  hour  until  6  A.M.  of  Decem- 
ber 23d,  labored  vainly  to  induce  her  to  confess  and  to  return  to 
the  faith.  Amusquibar,  on  the  contrary,  states  that  there  was 
no  record  that  she  was  notified  of  the  sentence;  that  the  book 
of  votes  did  not  contain  such  a  sentence  and  that,  even  if  there  was 
one,  it  was  invalid  in  consequence  of  the  absence  of  the  Ordinary; 
moreover  that,  in  spite  of  her  confessions,  no  new  consulta  de  fe 
was  summoned  to  consider  them.  Altogether,  if  Amusquibar 
is  to  be  believed,  it  was  a  cold-blooded  judicial  murder  contrived, 
like  the  burning  of  Ulloa  in  effigy,  for  the  purpose  of  rendering 
more  impressive  the  spectacle  of  the  auto  de  fe.  In  the  same 
auto  there  was  a  reconciliation  in  effigy  of  Pedro  Nunez  de  la 
Haba,  a  Judaizer  of  Valdivia,  who  had  escaped  from  prison  after 
his  case  was  finished.  If  recaptured  he  was  to  be  confined  in 
the  castle  of  Chagre,  until  he  could  be  sent  to  the  penitential 
prison  of  Seville,  and  was  to  have  two  hundred  lashes  for  his  flight. 
A  small  auto  particular  followed,  November  11,  1737,  in  which 
Juan  Antonio  Pereyra,  a  Portuguese,  was  sentenced  to  abjure  de 
vehementi,  two  hundred  lashes,  ten  years  of  presidio  at  Valdivia 
and  half  confiscation.1 

These  are  the  only  cases  of  Judaism  recorded  at  this  period  and 
if  the  number  is  so  scanty  this  must  be  attributed  to  the  lack 
of  Judaizers  and  not  to  indifference  of  the  tribunal.  How  ready 
it  was  to  prosecute  is  exhibited  in  the  next  case,  that  of  Don  Juan 
de  Loyola  y  Haro,  a  scion  of  the  family  of  St.  Ignatius  and  an 
elderly  gentleman  of  high  consideration.  He  was  arrested,  July 

1  Bermudez  de  la  Torre,  Triunfos  del  Santo  Oficio  Peruano,  fol.  59-60,  154-55, 
178.— Palma,  Aftales,  pp.  105-6.— Medina,  Lima,  II,  312. 


JUDAISM  437 

9,  1743,  on  a  charge  of  Judaism  based  on  the  flimsiest  testimony 
of  a  negro  slave.  Other  evidence  was  gathered,  but  with  it  the 
commissioner  of  lea  wrote  that  the  current  belief  regarded  it  as 
a  conspiracy  on  the  part  of  his  slaves,  and  that  this  had  been 
confessed  by  one  of  the  witnesses  when  dying.  In  spite  of  this 
his  trial  continued,  nor  was  he  released  when,  in  February,  1745, 
the  four  false  witnesses  were  arrested.  He  fell  sick;  in  July  he 
was  transferred  to  a  convent,  where  he  died,  December  27th  of 
the  same  year,  and  was  secretly  buried  in  the  chapel  of  S.  Maria 
Magdalena.  Evidently  his  family  were  kept  in  ignorance  until 
an  auto  was  held  October  19,  1749,  when  the  witnesses  were 
punished  and  a  great  parade  was  made  of  the  equity  of  the  tribu- 
nal. His  effigy  was  carried  in  procession,  bearing  in  one  hand  a 
palm-branch  and  in  the  other  a  gold  baton  symbolical  of  his 
military  rank  as  maestre  de  campo.  His  acquittal  was  read, 
empowering  his  brothers  to  carry  the  effigy  around  the  town  on 
a  white  horse,  to  exhume  the  remains  and  bury  them  where  he 
had  indicated  on  his  death-bed,  and  certificates  were  granted  to 
them  that  his  imprisonment  inflicted  no  disabilities  on  his  kindred. 
On  the  next  day  the  procession  of  the  white  horse  took  place 
with  much  pomp  and  circumstance.  The  Suprema,  on  reviewing 
the  report,  pronounced  the  whole  proceedings  to  be  vicious  from 
the  start  and  destitute  of  all  the  safeguards  provided  against 
injustice.1  It  is  perhaps  worth  noting  that  most  of  it  occurred 
after  Calderon  and  Unda  had  been  superseded  by  Arenaza  and 
Amusquibar.  With  this  the  formal  persecution  of  Judaism  in 
Peru  comes  to  an  end,  except  that,  in  1774,  the  tribunal  wrote 
to  the  Suprema  that  the  only  cases  then  pending  were  thirteen 
for  Judaizing,  but  that  they  had  no  basis.2 

With  regard  to  the  general  character  of  the  punishments 
inflicted  it  may  be  remarked  that  they  vary  capriciously,  in 
accordance  doubtless  with  the  temper  of  the  inquisitors,  whose 
discretion  had  few  limits.  In  the  earlier  days  there  would  seem 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  336,  341-52.  *  Ibidem,  p.  378. 


438 

to  be  a  tendency  to  greater  rigor  than  that  customary  in  Spain. 
In  the  auto  of  1578  the  sentences,  as  a  rule,  are  exceedingly  severe.1 
When  Judaism  came  to  be  conspicuous,  the  penalties  which  we 
have  seen  inflicted  were  very  similar  to  those  imposed  for  the  same 
offence  by  the  home  tribunals.  As  the  galleys  went  out  of  fashion 
and  were  replaced  by  forced  labor  in  the  presidios,  the  principal 
destination  to  which  culprits  were  sent  was  Valdivia,  though 
occasionally  they  were  assigned  to  Callao,  Chagre  or  other  ports 
where  fortifications  were  under  construction.  Scourging,  as  in 
Spain,  was  a  favorite  resort,  without  distinction  of  sex.  We 
have  seen  how  ruthlessly  it  was  employed  in  the  great  auto  of  1639 
and  this  continued  as  long  as  the  tribunal  was  active.  In  the 
auto  of  1736  there  were  sixteen  sentences  of  two  hundred  lashes, 
half  of  them  on  women,  for  bigamy,  sorcery  and  other  similar 
offences.  In  that  of  1737  there  were  only  nine  penitents,  five 
of  them  being  women;  all  of  them  were  sentenced  to  two  hun- 
dred lashes  apiece,  but  this  was  remitted  in  the  case  of  one  of  the 
men.2  In  addition  to  the  suffering,  there  was  the  severest  of 
humiliations  for  those  sensitive  to  shame.  The  so-called  penitents 
were  marched  in  procession  through  the  streets,  naked  from  the 
waist  up,  with  insignia  or  inscriptions  denoting  their  offences, 
while  the  executioner  plied  the  lash.  The  assembled  mob  was 
in  the  habit  of  manifesting  its  piety  by  stoning  the  poor  wretches, 
to  repress  which  the  tribunal  occasionally  issued  a  proclamation, 
such  as  we  have  seen  in  1639.  Similarly,  before  the  auto  of 
October  19,  1749,  it  forbade  the  throwing  of  stones,  apples, 
oranges  or  other  missiles  at  the  penitents,  under  pain  of  a  hundred 
pesos  for  Spaniards  and  ten  pesos  with  four  days  of  prison  for 
others.8  Although  there  are  frequent  sentences  to  imprisonment 
for  longer  or  shorter  terms,  there  is  no  allusion  anywhere  to  a 
casa  de  la  misericordia  or  de  la  penitencia,  as  it  was  called  in 
Spain,  in  which  the  penitents  could  perform  their  penance. 


1  Palma,  Afiales,  pp.  14-19. 

J  Bermudez  de  la  Torre,  Triunfos,  pp.  136-57,  172-78. 

1  Palma,  Afiales,  p.  139. 


PUNISHMENTS  439 

Occasional  instances  in  which  they  are  ordered  to  be  shipped  to 
the  home  country  renders  it  probable  that  this  was  the  usual 
recourse  in  such  cases.  Exile  was  a  frequent  penalty,  sometimes 
to  a  designated  place,  but  more  frequently  from  certain  cities 
or  districts,  where  the  culprit  had  committed  offences;  when 
this  happened  to  be  his  native  home,  where  his  trade  or  profession 
was  established,  it  might  be  a  most  severe  infliction,  depriving 
him  of  his  means  of  livelihood ;  when  the  culprit  was  a  vagrant  or 
an  old  sorceress  it  mattered  little. 

The  inexplicable  inconsistency  in  the  adjudgement  of  penalties, 
when  gauged  by  any  rational  standard,  can  best  be  understood 
by  the  contrast  in  a  few  cases.  The  tenderness  displayed  towards 
the  abuse  of  the  confessional  has  already  been  alluded  to.  The 
same  is  seen  in  some  of  the  sentences  for  crimes  of  a  still  more 
serious  character.  Thus  in  the  auto  of  July  12,  1733,  Sebastiana 
de  Figueroa,  a  mestiza  aged  60,  for  sorceries  including  adoration 
of  the  demon  and  causing  sickness  and  deaths,  offences  for  which 
in  a  secular  tribunal  she  would  have  been  executed  without  mercy, 
yet  escaped  with  abjuration  de  vehementi,  half  confiscation,  two 
hundred  lashes  (which  were  remitted)  and  four  years  of  exile 
to  a  designated  place.1  In  the  auto  of  1736,  Maria  Josepha 
Canga,  a  free  negress,  who  had  made  her  husband  insane  with 
sorceries  and  herbs,  so  as  to  have  freedom  for  adultery,  merely 
abjured  de  levi,  with  four  years'  service  in  the  hospital  of  San 
Bartolome.  In  the  same  auto,  Juan  Gonzalez  de  Ribera,  a 
mestizo,  had  gone  to  the  Indians,  adopted  their  ways,  professed 
their  religion  and,  worst  of  all,  had  induced  several  Spaniards 
to  do  the  same,  in  addition  to  which  he  had  taken  three  wives. 
He  was  thus  a  dogmatizer  and  was  condemned  as  a  bigamist, 
idolater,  sorcerer  and  diviner,  and  yet  he  merely  abjured  de  vehe- 
menti and  had  three  years  hard  labor  on  an  island  off  Callao.2 

With  this  ill-judged  mercy  may  be  contrasted  the  case  of 
Frangois  Moyen,  a  Frenchman  of  varied  talents  and  wide  culture, 


1  Barnuevp  de  Peralta,  Relacion  del  Auto  de  1733,  Lima,  1733. 
1  Bermudez  de  la  Torre,  Triunfos,  fol.  146,  152. 


440  PERU 

skilled  as  an  artist  and  musician,  whose  evil  fortune  threw  him 
upon  the  tender  mercies  of  Amusqufbar.  Born  in  1720,  he  led 
a  somewhat  adventurous  life;  that  he  was  a  believing  Catholic 
is  seen  in  a  vow  of  pilgrimage  to  Compostela,  made  during  danger 
in  a  voyage — a  vow  which  he  duly  performed  in  1739,  during  a 
residence  in  Lisbon.  In  1746  he  sailed  from  there  to  Rio  de  Jan- 
eiro, with  the  Count  de  las  Torres,  who  had  important  business 
in  Chile.  At  Buenos  Ayres  they  parted,  the  count  hastening 
across  the  Pampas,  while  Moyen  tarried  there  for  awhile,  his 
vivacity  and  his  accomplishments  rendering  him  a  general  favorite. 
During  his  stay  he  again  manifested  his  devoutness  by  perform- 
ing the  spiritual  exercises  of  St.  Ignatius.  About  the  middle 
of  1748,  at  the  request  of  the  count,  who  had  gone  to  Lima,  he 
started  to  rejoin  him  by  way  of  Potosi,  in  company  of  a  band  of 
traders.  With  light-hearted  carelessness,  he  talked  freely,  in 
the  confidence  of  the  road  and  the  bivouac;  as  a  Frenchman  of 
the  Gallican  school  and  accustomed  to  the  freedom  of  speech  in 
Paris,  he  said  much  that  he  had  better  have  left  unsaid,  with  a 
singular  imprudence  in  view  of  his  acquaintance  with  the  methods 
of  the  Portuguese  Inquisition,  his  criticism  of  which  formed  one 
of  the  counts  in  his  indictment. 

He  became  an  object  of  suspicion  to  his  companions,  especially 
to  a  Gallego  named  Jose*  Antonio  Soto.  Potosf  was  reached 
March  27,  1749,  where  a  considerable  stay  was  made,  during 
which  Moyen  expended  four  pesos  in  masses.  Two  days  after 
arrival,  Soto  denounced  him  to  the  commissioner  Jose*  de  Ligaraza 
Beaumont  y  Navarra,  who  secretly  summoned  the  other  travel- 
lers and  muleteers,  and  gathered  testimony  swelling  the  sumaria 
to  some  two  hundred  pages.  It  was  loose  and  thoughtless  talk 
capable  in  the  hands  of  the  inquisitorial  theologians  of  deductions 
most  damaging — predestination  in  its  most  absolute  form,  poly- 
gamy justifiable,  marriage  not  a  sacrament;  masses,  prayers  and 
indulgences  were  useless  to  souls  in  purgatory;  limbo  and  purga- 
tory were  doubtful;  the  pope  was  not  the  head  of  the  Church  and 
had  no  power  to  bind  or  to  loose;  councils  were  superior  to  popes; 


PUNISHMENTS  441 

it  was  wrong  to  condemn  people  for  lack  of  knowledge  of  the  son 
of  a  carpenter,  and  much  more  of  the  same  kind.  The  ingenuity 
of  the  calificadores,  in  fact,  injected  heresy  into  the  simplest 
remarks.  When  he  reproved  a  muleteer  for  abusing  a  mule 
and  said  that  it  was  a  creature  of  God,  this  was  held  to  prove  that 
he  was  a  Manichean.  One  brilliant  night,  looking  at  the  stars, 
he  observed  that  their  multitude  was  superfluous,  thus  assuming 
that  God  had  erred  in  creation,  which  was  heretical  blasphemy, 
constituting  him  an  heretical  blasphemer.  A  criticism  of  the 
luxury  of  the  clergy,  with  a  reference  to  the  poverty  of  the  Apos- 
tles, showed  him  to  be  a  Wickliffite. 

Commissioner  Ligaraza  assembled  a  consulta,  which  voted  for 
the  arrest  of  so  dangerous  a  heretic.  It  was  executed  May  14th 
and  he  was  imprisoned  in  chains.  At  first  he  was  kept  incomu- 
nicado,  but  subsequently  visitors  were  admitted  who  provoked 
him  to  risky  discussions  and  then  gave  evidence  against  him,  in 
which,  among  other  matters,  a  debate  on  the  Eucharist  told 
heavily  against  him.  He  became  an  epileptic  and  suffered  fright- 
fully from  his  chains  and  the  cold  climate.  The  commissioner 
had  no  funds  for  his  maintenance;  he  endeavored  to  support 
himself  by  painting,  but  this  was  insufficient  and  his  only  solace, 
his  violin,  was  taken  and  sold,  reducing  him  to  such  despair  that 
he  attempted  suicide.  The  commissioner  was  in  no  haste  and 
did  not  report  the  arrest  until  June  9th  nor  transmit  the  evidence 
until  December.  On  May  9, 11  and  12, 1750,  the  tribunal  extracted 
from  it  forty-four  heretical  propositions  and  ordered  Moyen's 
transfer  to  Lima. 

This  journey,  which  commenced  July  12th,  consumed  two  years. 
Moyen's  health  had  been  wrecked  in  his  confinement  and  his 
epileptic  fits  recurred  almost  daily.  Several  times  he  nearly  died ; 
at  Chuquito  he  received  the  viaticum.  It  was  not  until  April, 
1751,  that  Cuzco  was  reached,  when  he  chanced  to  interest  a 
lawyer  named  Tomas  de  Lecaros,  who  entered  security  for  him 
and  carried  him  to  Arequipa,  in  vain  search  for  improvement. 
There  he  met  an  English  hatter  named  William — a  good  Catholic 


442  PERU 

who  attended  mass  daily — who  counselled  hypocrisy  and  silence 
about  religious  matters  in  a  land  where  there  was  an  Inquisition. 
Moyen  chanced  to  mention  this  in  his  examinations;  the  English- 
man was  arrested  and  ruined. 

On  the  return  to  Cuzco,  a  halt  was  made  at  Urcos,  eight  leagues 
distant.  Amusquibar,  on  September  14,  1751,  called  for  his 
appearance  within  two  months;  the  commissioner  of  Cuzco  sent 
his  notary,  when  Moyen  drew  a  dagger  and  attempted  resistance 
but  was  overpowered.  Some  three  months  later  Fray  Juan  de 
San  Miguel  wrote  to  the  tribunal  that  Moyen  was  hardened  in 
his  heresies  and  scattered  them  freely  around  Cuzco.  That  place 
was  left,  January  29,  1752,  fortunately  prior  to  the  reception  of 
an  order  from  Amusqufbar  to  forward  him  in  chains.  March 
26th  he  was  delivered  to  the  tribunal,  broken  and  prematurely  old 
with  the  sufferings  of  these  three  preliminary  years  of  his  trial. 

Proceedings  dragged  on  with  the  customary  delays.  The  accu- 
sation, presented  October  13th,  represented  him  as  a  formal  and 
pertinacious  heretic  and  a  follower  of  the  sects  of  Luther,  Calvin, 
Jansen,  Quesnel,  Manichee  and  Mahomet,  besides  being  strongly 
suspect  of  Judaism.  Discussion  over  these  articles  lasted  until 
May  18,  1753,  when  he  professed  profound  repentance  for  having 
discussed  religious  matters  and  begged  for  mercy.  During  the 
prolonged  delays  which  ensued  his  sufferings  in  the  prison  were 
severe — in  themselves  an  excessive  punishment  for  reckless  speech. 
Besides  his  continual  epileptic  fits,  his  feet  were  eaten  up  by  chi- 
goes; his  chains  chafed  his  ankles  into  sores,  which  threatened 
gangrene  of  one  leg,  and  when,  to  avert  this,  on  November  13th, 
the  alcaide  was  directed  to  remove  one  of  the  shackles,  the  other 
was  left  on.  In  spite  of  this  he  made  several  attempts  to  escape — 
once  by  endeavoring  to  set  fire  to  the  door  of  his  cell  with  the 
candle  allowed  to  him  at  night,  whereupon  he  was  deprived 
of  it.  Again  he  succeeded  in  reaching  the  house  of  the  Count  of 
las  Torres,  only  to  be  remanded,  and  on  a  third  effort  his  plans 
were  betrayed  by  a  prisoner  in  an  adjoining  cell. 

Two  years  were  consumed  in  sending  the  evidence  to  Potosf 


PUNISHMENTS  443 

for  ratification  and  awaiting  its  return,  although  at  first  it  had 
been  ratified  ad  perpetuam.  It  was  not  received  until  April, 
1755,  and  then  its  publication  was  delayed  until  September  3d. 
After  this  followed  the  customary  examinations  on  the  evidence, 
which  were  prolonged  until  March  14,  1758 — a  delay  largely 
caused  by  Moyen's  constant  epileptic  attacks.  His  counsel  did 
not  present  the  defence  until  November  8,  1759,  and  then  the 
consulta  de  fe  was  not  assembled  until  January  15,  1761.  It 
considered  the  case  until  February  14th,  when  the  definitive 
vote  was  taken,  under  a  protest  that  torture  was  not  ordered  in 
view  of  the  weakened  condition  of  the  accused.  The  sentence 
finally  was  published  in  the  auto  of  the  following  April  5th.  It 
condemned  him  to  abjure  de  vehemently  to  ten  years'  forced 
labor  in  an  African  presidio  (Oran,  Ceuta  or  Melilla),  or  in  the 
penitential  prison  of  Seville,  as  the  inquisitor-general  might  prefer, 
and  to  two  hundred  lashes,  which  were  commuted  to  vergiienza  in 
consideration  of  his  infirmities.  The  humiliating  parade  of  the 
vergiienza  through  the  streets  of  Lima  was  duly  performed  the 
next  day;  on  the  llth  he  was  shipped  in  irons  by  the  galleon  San 
Juan  Bautista,  reaching  Cadiz  in  November;  in  December  he 
was  sent  to  Seville  to  which  the  African  presidio  was  commuted. 
No  consideration  seems  to  have  been  given  to  the  sufferings  of 
the  thirteen  years  of  imprisonment  since  his  arrest,  nor  to  the 
wreck  of  a  joyous  and  promising  life  for  a  few  inconsiderate 
utterances. 

Amusquibar  sought  to  justify  the  excessive  delays  of  the  trial 
by  the  quarrels  in  which  he  was  involved,  by  his  own  sickness  and 
that  of  the  accused,  but  the  Suprema  did  not  accept  these  excuses 
and  replied  that  the  ten  years  intervening  between  the  receipt 
of  the  prisoner  and  the  sentence  was  an  excessive  delay  and 
grave  omission  of  the  tribunal.1  There  was  in  all  this  no  special 
malignity;  it  was  simply  the  habitual  application  of  the  system 
with  callous  indifference  as  to  the  results  to  the  accused. 

1  Mackenna,  Francisco  Moyen,  passim. — Palma,  Afiales,  pp.  129-32. — Medina, 
Lima,  II,  374. 


444  PJEJB  U 

Not  the  least  important  function  of  the  Inquisition  was  the 
censorship  of  the  press.  Although  in  Spain  this  was  reserved  to 
the  Suprema,  and  the  tribunals  could  only  refer  to  it  books  which 
they  regarded  as  suspect,  distance  rendered  independent  action 
necessary  in  the  colonies.  From  an  early  period  the  Lima  tri- 
bunal examined  books  and  prohibited  such  as  it  saw  fit.  The 
importation  of  printed  matter  was  also,  as  in  Spain,  subject  to 
its  supervision.  The  original  instructions,  borne  by  Cerezuela, 
enjoined  special  watchfulness  by  the  commissioners  at  the  sea- 
ports, to  prevent  the  introduction  of  all  works  that  were  on  the 
Index.  To  insure  this,  at  first  no  books  were  admitted  except 
through  Callao,  and  the  commissioner  at  Panama  was  required 
to  keep  a  close  watch  on  everything  destined  for  that  point. 
Nothing  could  be  shipped  from  there  without  his  licence,  nor 
could  any  package  be  opened  except  in  his  presence.  The  same 
vigilance  was  exercised  at  Callao,  and  all  books  were  sent  to  Fray 
Juan  de  Almaraz,  Prior  of  San  Agustin,  for  examination.  As 
the  settlement  and  commerce  of  Buenos  Ayres  developed,  similar 
precautions  were  observed  there.  There  was  always  a  haunting 
dread  of  the  efforts  attributed  to  the  Protestants  to  smuggle 
heretic  books  into  the  land.  In  1605  there  was  a  scare  of  this 
kind,  based  on  rumors  that  ships  from  Lisbon  manned  by  Flem- 
ings were  bringing  such  works  in  casks  purporting  to  contain  wine 
or  salt,  and  special  orders  were  issued  to  the  commissioner  to 
be  doubly  watchful.1  As  in  Spain,  this  system  was  a  serious 
impediment  to  trade,  and  led  not  infrequently  to  collisions  with 
the  secular  authorities.  It  required  that  all  ships  on  arrival 
should  be  visited  by  the  commissioner  before  any  passenger  or 
merchandise  was  landed,  and  that  the  latter,  when  brought  on 
shore,  should  be  opened  in  his  presence  and  be  minutely  inspected. 

Even  so  high  an  ecclesiastical  dignitary  as  the  Archbishop  of 
Lima  was  not  exempt  from  the  censorship  of  the  tribunal.  We 
have  seen  how  Amusqulbar  used  this  power  for  the  humiliation 
of  Archbishop  Barroeta,  nor  was  this  the  only  instance.  Juan  de 

1  Medina,  Lima,  I,  5,  172,  330;  II,  368. 


CENSORSHIP  445 

Almoguera,  who  was  archbishop  from  1674  to  1676,  while  yet 
Bishop  of  Arequipa,  had  been  strongly  impressed  with  the  disso- 
lute lives  of  the  priests  among  the  Indians  and,  in  1671,  he  pub- 
lished in  Madrid  a  series  of  Instructions,  which  the  inquisitors 
held  to  be  not  only  defamatory  to  the  priests,  but  to  contain 
propositions  adverse  to  the  Holy  See.  The  archbishop  defended 
himself  by  asserting  that  his  doctrines  were  approved  by  the 
most  learned  men  of  Peru,  and  that  the  facts  which  he  cited  were 
perfectly  true,  for  which  he  appealed  to  the  testimony  of  the 
inquisitors  themselves.  They  admitted  this,  but  nevertheless 
they  caused  the  edict  of  prohibition  to  be  published  everywhere.1 

The  reformatory  legislation  of  Carlos  III,  from  1762  to  1768, 
limiting  the  unrestricted  control  of  the  Inquisition  over  the  pro- 
hibition of  books,  was  long  in  reaching  Peru.  In  1773  Viceroy 
Amat  y  Yunient  says  that  although  he  had  not  yet  received  the 
cedula  of  1768  officially  through  the  Council  of  Indies,  yet  he 
defines  its  provisions  as  a  guide.  It  put  in  force  the  Constitution 
Sollicita  ac  provida  of  Benedict  XIV,  entitling  authors  to  be  heard 
in  defence  of  their  books;  it  prevented  the  prohibition  of  books 
ad  interim  until  a  final  decision  was  reached ;  where  expurgations 
were  ordered  they  were  to  be  made  known  so  that  owners  could 
delete  the  objectionable  passages,  and  all  edicts  were  to  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  viceroy  before  publication.2  The  demand  for  litera- 
ture must  have  been  greater  than  would  be  anticipated,  for,  in 
1772,  there  was  a  discussion  between  the  viceroy  and  the  tribu- 
nal over  the  proceedings  in  opening  and  examining  165  cases  of 
books.3 

At  this  period  the  censorship  was  exercised  largely  through  the 
civil  authorities.  February  28,  1787,  the  Viceroy  Count  de  Croix 
reported  to  the  king  the  execution  of  his  orders  of  1785  in  the 
suppression  and  burning  of  certain  books,  the  seizure  of  all  copies 
that  could  be  traced  to  the  possession  of  booksellers  or  of  individ- 
uals, and  the  issue  of  an  edict  prohibiting  the  printing  of  anything 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  249.  2  Memorias  de  los  Vireyes,  IV,  472. 

8  Archive  national  de  Lima,  Protocol©  225,  Expte  5278. 


446 

without  a  licence,  even  the  University  not  being  permitted  to 
publish  the  eulogies  and  addresses  customary  on  the  arrival  of  a 
viceroy,  or  the  Latin  orations  with  which  the  studies  were  annually 
opened.  The  Inquisition  is  only  alluded  to  in  connection  with 
the  examination  of  importations,  none  being  delivered  from  the 
custom-house  without  preliminary  inspection  by  the  commissioner 
of  the  tribunal,  in  connection  with  an  appointee  of  the  govern- 
ment.1 As  in  Spain,  this  censorship  extended  over  morals  as 
well  as  over  religion  and  politics.  In  1796,  Antonio  Ortiz,  the 
commissioner  at  Buenos  Ayres,  was  much  exercised  over  certain 
wall-papers  received  from  Barcelona.  Some  of  them  had  mytho- 
logical figures,  such  as  Hercules,  Venus  and  the  like,  which  he 
considered  intolerable.  There  was  another  one  representing  the 
globe  adorned  with  flowers  and  presided  over  by  Cupid  with  a 
lighted  torch,  as  though  to  burn  it  with  his  impure  fires,  all  of 
which  he  was  impelled  to  cut  up  into  small  pieces.2  As  we  have 
seen  in  Mexico,  even  ill-advised  symbols  of  devotion  were  pro- 
hibited. When,  at  the  suppression  in  1813,  the  building  of  the 
Inquisition  was  entered,  Stevenson  describes  seeing  there  among 
the  mass  of  prohibited  books,  a  quantity  of  cotton  handkerchiefs 
on  which  was  printed  a  figure  of  Religion  with  a  chalice  in  one 
hand  and  a  cross  in  the  other — a  device  which  the  manufacturer 
had  fondly  believed  would  render  them  popular,  without  reflecting 
upon  the  desecration  inseparable  from  their  use.3 

From  this  time  the  principal  work  of  the  tribunal  was  in  the 
enforcement  of  the  prohibition  of  literature  regarded  as  dangerous 
to  State  or  Church.  Camilo  Henriquez,  priest  of  the  Padres 
Cruciferos  de  la  Buena  Muerte,  was  a  prominent  object  of  perse- 
cution. In  1809  he  was  denounced  for  reading  prohibited  books; 
his  cell  was  searched  without  success,  but  the  accuser  insisted 
and  on  a  more  minute  investigation  his  mattress  was  found  to  be 
stuffed  with  the  dangerous  material.  He  was  arrested  and,  in 
1810,  was  banished  to  Quito,  but  instead  of  obeying  he  joined  the 

1  Memoriaa  de  los  Vireyes,  V,  85.  2  Medina,  La  Plata,  II,  256. 

»  Stevenson,  Twenty  Years  in  South  America,  I,  269 


DECADENCE  447 

insurgents  of  Chile  and  distinguished  himself  by  supporting  the 
revolution  in  La  Aurora,  the  periodical  which  he  founded.  Under 
the  Restoration,  the  tribunal  had  little  real  work  to  do  except 
to  issue  edicts  prohibiting  European  periodicals,  political  pam- 
phlets and  other  productions  in  which  it  could  discover  opinions 
inimical  to  the  established  order  in  politics  and  religion.1 

In  the  turbulent  atmosphere  of  the  early  nineteenth  century, 
the  authority  of  the  Inquisition  naturally  declined,  especially 
as  the  character  of  the  inquisitors  was  so  unfitted  to  inspire  respect. 
Its  suppression  by  the  decree  of  the  Cortes  of  Cadiz,  February  22, 
1813,  was  evidently  seen  in  advance  to  be  inevitable  and  was 
fatal  to  its  influence.  Shortly  before  that  decree  was  received 
Stevenson  relates  that  he  was  summoned  before  the  tribunal,  in 
consequence  of  a  discussion  in  a  coffee-house  with  a  Fray  Busta- 
mante,  respecting  the  image  of  the  Madonna  of  the  Rosary.  If 
we  may  believe  his  story  of  the  audience,  he  treated  the  inquisi- 
tors with  slender  reverence  and  escaped  with  an  admonition  to 
avoid  religious  disputes,  and  to  bear  in  mind  that  in  the  dominions 
of  his  Catholic  Majesty  all  men  were  subject  to  the  Inquisition.2 
When  the  decree  of  suppression  was  published,  he  had  an  oppor- 
tunity of  accompanying  the  first  party  that  entered  the  building, 
so  long  an  object  of  universal  dread.  The  prison  cells  were  all 
open  and  empty;  he  describes  them  as  small  but  not  uncomfort- 
able. In  the  audience-chamber,  back  of  the  judges'  dais,  there 
hung  on  high  a  life-sized  image  of  Christ ;  its  head  was  so  arranged 
as  to  be  movable  by  a  person  secreted  behind,  on  a  signal  from 
the  inquisitor,  producing  a  profound  impression  on  the  awe- 
struck culprit,  who  was  denying  his  guilt.  From  his  description 
of  the  torture-room  it  would  seem  that  the  tortures  employed, 
though  cruel  enough,  were  less  severe  than  those  formerly  in 
use — the  cordeles  and  jarras  de  agua,  the  mancuerda,  the  trampazo 
and  the  garrucha.  There  was  a  rack  on  which  the  arms  and  legs 
could  be  stretched;  a  kind  of  pillory  for  scourging  with  scourges, 

1  Palma,  Anales,  p.  176,  210. 

2  Stevenson,  Twenty  Years  in  South  America,  I,  261-67. 


448  PERU 

some  of  which  were  of  wire  chains  with  sharp  points; "  tormentors'' 
of  netted  wire  with  points,  arranged  to  fit  the  wrists  or  waists, 
the  legs  or  arms,  and  thumb-screws — a  grisly  collection,  but  less 
likely  to  endanger  life  and  limb  than  the  older  atrocities.  The 
crowd  which  found  admittance  carried  off  some  of  these  as 
mementos  and  also  some  of  the  records,  but  the  archbishop  the 
next  day  published  an  excommunication  against  all  who  should 
not  return  what  they  had  taken,  and  most  of  the  documents 
were  restored.1 

We  have  seen  that  the  money  found  in  the  chest  was  taken  by 
the  authorities  and  this  of  course  was  retained,  but  the  salaries 
of  the  officials  were  continued.  The  suspension  was  short-lived, 
ending  with  the  decree  of  July  21,  1814,  re-establishing  the 
Inquisition,  when  the  three  inquisitors,  Abarca,  Zalduegui  and 
Sobrino,  resumed  their  places,  but  the  old  awful  authority  could 
not  be  revived.  They  complained  bitterly  of  the  viceroy,  who 
showed  himself,  they  said,  hostile  to  the  re-establishment.  He 
delayed  issuing  the  decree,  treated  them  with  discourtesy  and 
refused  to  refund  the  money.  They  depicted  the  deplorable 
condition  of  the  tribunal,  destitute  of  means  to  pay  salaries  in 
arrears,  or  even  to  make  arrests  that  had  been  resolved  upon 
prior  to  the  suppression,  while  the  buildings  were  dirty  and  out 
of  repair.2  We  can  readily  imagine  that  the  progress  of  the 
War  of  Independence  left  little  leisure  or  disposition  on  the  part 
of  the  authorities  to  listen  to  their  complaints.  How  completely 
decadent  was  their  authority,  is  seen  in  a  letter  from  the  Suprema 
ordering  them  to  summon  an  Englishman  named  John  Robinson 
and  point  out  to  him  that  he  had  been  admitted  to  residence  on 
condition  of  not  talking  about  religion,  or  dogmatizing  against 
Catholicism,  and  they  were  moreover  to  seek  an  interview  with 
the  viceroy,  to  ask  his  aid  in  restraining  the  man  and  to  report 
the  result.3  Times  had  changed  since  Frangois  Moyen  was  so 
inhumanly  persecuted  for  his  loquacity. 


1  Stevenson,  op.  tit.,  I,  267-74.— Medina,  Lima,  II,  398. 

2  Medina,  Lima,  II,  400.  •  Palma,  AHales,  p.  211. 


RESTORATION  449 

Still,  they  were  not  without  some  remnants  of  authority.  The 
University  of  Lima  had  sent  an  address  to  the  Cortes  of  Cadiz, 
congratulating  it  on  the  decree  of  suppression.  This  was  an 
offence  not  to  be  overlooked  and,  April  7,  1815,  the  Suprema  sent 
an  order  to  dismiss  all  the  signers  of  the  paper  who  held  office 
under  the  tribunal.  Accordingly,  on  October  29th,  Fray  Josef 
Recalde  was  summoned  to  surrender  his  vestment  and  badge 
as  a  calificador.  To  this  he  replied,  November  3d,  with  a  suppli- 
cation not  to  expose  him  to  such  a  dishonor;  the  paper  had  been 
presented  to  him  for  signature  by  the  beadle  of  the  University, 
saying  that  it  was  an  act  of  obedience  to  the  Cortes  and  he,  being 
busy,  had  signed  it  without  reading  it,  as  he  was  accustomed  to 
do  with  the  numerous  papers  requiring  his  signature.  On  this 
Inquisitor-fiscal  Sobrino  reported  that  Recalde  only  intensified 
his  offence,  and  he  proceeded  to  accuse  the  University  of  mis- 
leading youth  and  allowing  them  to  read  prohibited  books,  while 
Recalde's  statement  only  showed  how  recklessly  its  members 
joined  in  anything  resolved  upon  by  the  leaders.  Both  papers 
were  forwarded,  December  13th,  to  the  Suprema  for  its  judge- 
ment, but  whether  Recalde  was  reinstated  does  not  appear  from 
the  documents  at  hand.1 

The  officials  continued  to  draw  their  salaries,  but  there  is  little 
trace  of  their  activity.  The  latest  indication  I  have  met  of  their 
performance  of  duty  is  a  letter  from  the  Suprema,  July  11,  1817, 
to  the  tribunal  of  Logrono,  asking  for  information  to  guide  the 
tribunal  of  Lima  in  a  case  of  alleged  bigamy  on  the  part  of  Don 
Fernando  Diaz,  then  a  resident  of  Cuzco.2  In  that  same  year  a 
"  voluntary"  subscription  in  aid  of  the  government  was  organized, 
to  which  the  contribution  of  Inquisitor-fiscal  Sobrino  was  nig- 
gardly, leading  to  his  being  reprimanded  from  Madrid.3  In  1819 
the  tribunal  was  reorganized.  The  senior  inquisitor  Abarca  was 
dead  and  Zalduegui  was  dean;  he  and  Sobrino  were  jubilated  on 
one-quarter  of  their  salaries  and  the  tribunal  consisted  of  Crist6val 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Legajo  1473. 

2  Ibidem,  Libro  559.  •  Palma,  Afiales,  p.  213. 

29 


460 

de  Ortegon  as  senior,  Anselmo  Perez  de  la  Canal  as  junior  and  Jos6 
Mariano  de  Larrea  as  fiscal. 

Their  term  of  office  was  short.  The  final  decree  of  suppression, 
March  9, 1820,  was  long  in  reaching  Peru,  where  it  was  not  pro- 
mulgated until  September  9th,  with  orders  to  communicate  it  to 
all  the  archbishops  of  the  district  and  to  take  the  necessary  steps 
for  assuming  possession  of  the  property.  This  was  done  decently 
and  in  order.  On  September  18th  Viceroy  Pezuela  ordered  the 
intendant  of  the  province,  in  concert  with  the  two  regidores  of 
Lima,  to  proceed  in  accordance  with  the  decree  of  February  22, 
1813,  to  occupy  the  property,  including  its  patronage  and  pious 
foundations,  and  to  make  an  exact  inventory.  This  was  followed, 
September  20th,  with  instructions  that  at  8.30  A.M.  of  Friday, 
September  22d,  possession  should  be  taken,  and  the  ex-dean  was 
notified  to  be  ready  in  order  that  it  should  be  executed  with 
promptitude.  At  nine  o'clock  on  Saturday  the  intendant  and 
the  regidores  met  in  the  Inquisition  and  made  an  inventory  of  all 
property  found  there.  In  pursuance  of  Article  10  of  the  decree 
of  1813,  the  commission  of  three,  on  September  28th,  issued  an 
order  calling  on  the  ex-receiver-general,  Carlos  Lizon,  for  an 
authentic  list  of  all  the  officials  with  their  salaries,  so  that  the 
latter  might  be  paid.  This  was  superfluous;  from  time  imme- 
morial the  custom  had  been  to  pay  all  salaries  in  advance,  in 
instalments  of  four  months.  The  inquisitors  had  providently 
taken  care  of  themselves  and  their  subordinates  and,  on  August 
29th  and  September  1st,  had  issued  orders  on  Receiver  Lizon  for 
the  tercio  adelantado,  commencing  September  1st,  so  that  he  was 
able  to  exhibit  the  corresponding  receipts,  amounting  to  9472 
pesos  and  a  fraction,  indicating  on  annual  pay-roll  of  28,417 
pesos. 

That  the  inventory  only  showed  a  few  items  of  volumes  of 
records  is  testimony  of  the  completeness  with  which  everything 
had  been  appropriated.  Although  the  work  of  the  tribunal  had 
shrunk  almost  to  nothingness,  all  the  offices  had  been  kept  filled 
and  the  roster  was  as  complete  as  it  had  been  in  the  period  of  the 


EXTINCTION  451 

greatest  activity.1     It  is  presumable  that,  as  in  Mexico,  they  went 
to  Spain  and  were  provided  for  there. 

The  total  amount  of  work  accomplished  is  estimated  by  Medina 
as  three  thousand  cases  tried,  but  this  is  probably  too  liberal  an 
allowance.  His  exhaustive  researches  have  resulted  only  in  an 
enumeration  of  1474  cases. 

These  consist  of — 

Laymen 1126  Dominicans 34 

Women 180  Mercenarians 36 

Secular  clergy        .      .      .      .      .  101  Augustinians 26 

Franciscans  49  Jesuits  .      .  12 


1  Archivo  nacional  de  Lima,  Inventarios  Originales,  No.  1. 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  put  on  record  the  personnel  of  the  tribunal  and  the 
salaries  at  the  moment  of  extinction : 

Pesos.        Reales.      Mrs. 

Inquisidor  mas  antiguo  Crist6val  de  Ortegon 4962          9           30 

Inquisidor  Anselmo  Pe"rez  de  la  Canal  (at  J  of  salary  as 

ordered  by  Suprema) 3722          3           14 

Do.       fiscal  Jose  Mariano  de  Larrea  (Do. — but  with 

148  additional  as  Juez  de  los  bienes)   .      .      .  3870          3            6 

Jubilado  Dean  Pedro  Zalduegui              (at  i  salary)       .      .  1240          6           16 

"        Inquisidor  Jose"  Ruiz  Sobrino  (       Do.       )       .      .  1240          6          16 

Secretario  del  Secreto  Manuel  de  Arizcurrunaga       .      .      .  1700 

Do.              Franco  de  Echavarria  Momediano      .  1700 

Do.              Ramon  del  Valle 1700 

Do.              Carlos  Delgado               (at  £  salary)  850 

Do.      Jubilado  Pablo  de  la  Torre  (        Do.        )  850 

Secretario  de  Secuestros  Jacinto  Jimeno 1000 

Receptor-general  Carlos  Lizon,  1900,  together  with  250  for 

collecting  rents 2150 

Contador  Ildefonso  Gereda 500 

Abogado  del  Fisco  Manuel  de  la  Fuente  y  Chaves    .      .      .  350 

Procurador  del  Fisco  Mariano  Gonzalez 300 

Alcaide  de  Carceles  J.  Baut.  de  Barnechea 900 

Nuncio  A.  D.  Eustaquio 830 

Portero  de  Camara  Manuel  Leon 500 

Ministro  de  vara  Teodoro  Marino  .  50 


28,417  5  14 

In  addition  Teodoro  Marino  is  ordered  to  receive  33  pesos  2£  reales  for  four 
months'  service  as  portero  at  the  rate  of  100  pesos  per  annum.  Also  there  is  a 
salary  of  forty  reales  per  month  as  sweeper,  divided  between  Fray  Manuel  Baha- 
monde  and  Fray  Manuel  Tinoco,  who  are  each  to  receive  five  pesos  for  the  months 
of  July  and  August.  The  peso,  or  piece  of  eight  reales,  is  the  Spanish  dollar. 


462  PERU 

The  offences  prosecuted  were 

Propositions 140  Blasphemy 97 

Judaism 243  Sexual  errors 40 

Moors ..  -       5  Bigamy 297 

Protestants 65  Sorcery 172 

Solicitation 109  Miscellaneous  and  not  specified  306 

For  the  250  years  of  existence,  the  estimate  of  a  total  of  3000 
cases  would  make  12  per  annum,  or  1  per  month,  but  in  the  first 
20  years  of  the  tribunal  the  cases  amounted  to  1265,  which  would 
reduce  the  average  of  the  other  230  years  to  about  7J,  and  it 
would  be  safe  to  assume  for  the  last  century  an  average  of  not 
more  than  3  or  4  a  year.1 

For  this  slender  result,  to  say  nothing  of  the  large  expenditure, 
the  colony  was  kept  in  a  constant  state  of  disquiet,  the  orderly 
course  of  government  was  well-nigh  impossible,  intellectual,  com- 
mercial and  industrial  development  were  impeded,  universal  dis- 
trust of  one's  neighbor  was  commanded  by  ordinary  prudence, 
and  the  population  lived  with  the  sense  of  evil  ever  impending 
over  the  head  of  every  one.  That  there  was  any  real  danger  to 
the  faith  in  Peru  is  absurd.  Possibly  the  tribunal  may  have 
been  of  some  service  in  repressing  the  prevalence  of  bigamy 
among  laymen  and  of  solicitation  among  the  clergy,  but  the  fact 
that  these  two  offences  remained  to  the  last  so  prominent  in  its 
calendar  would  show  that  it  accomplished  little.  As  regards 
sorcery  and  superstitions,  which  pervaded  all  classes,  in  the  mixed 
population  of  Europeans,  Indians,  negroes  and  half-breeds,  with 
an  accumulation  of  superstitious  beliefs  drawn  from  so  many 
sources,  the  number  of  cases  is  surprisingly  small,  especially  as 
the  exemption  of  Indians  from  inquisitorial  jurisdiction  seems 
to  have  been  disregarded  in  this  offence.  In  the  repression  of 
the  practices  which  were  regarded  as  implying  pact  with  the  demon 
the  Inquisition  may  be  said  to  have  virtually  accomplished  noth- 
ing. It  would  be  difficult  to  find,  in  the  annals  of  human  mis- 
government,  a  parallel  case  in  which  so  little  was  accomplished 
at  so  great  a  cost  as  by  the  Inquisition  under  Spanish  institutions. 

1  Medina,  Lima,  II,  466-7 


CHAPTEE    VIII. 

NEW  GRANADA. 

ALTHOUGH  the  Nuevo  Reino  de  Granada  originally  formed  part 
of  the  Viceroyalty  of  Peru,  it  was  the  earliest  settlement  on  the 
continent  of  South  America.  When  Balboa,  in  1514,  reported 
his  rich  discoveries  in  Darien,  no  time  was  lost  in  sending  out 
Pedro  Arias  Davila  as  governor,  who  landed  at  Santa  Marta. 
He  took  with  him  as  bishop  Fray  Juan  de  Quevedo,  who  formed 
one  of  his  council  with  a  right  to  vote,  thus  founding  at  the  start 
that  curious  complication  of  jurisdictions  which  exercised  so 
unhappy  an  influence  on  the  development  of  the  Spanish  colonies. 
The  see  of  Santa  Marta,  however,  was  not  founded  until  1531  and, 
as  settlements  were  pushed  into  the  interior,  Santa  Fe  de  Bogotd, 
was  established  as  the  capital,  where  the  Audiencia,  or  high 
court,  was  organized  in  1547  and  governed  the  colony  until  1564, 
when  Andres  Diaz  Venero  de  Leiva  was  sent  out  as  president.1 
It  was  not  erected  into  a  viceroyalty  until  1719,  from  which  it 
was  reduced  to  its  former  state  in  a  few  years,  to  be  restored  again 
in  1740.2 

In  1532  the  see  of  Cartagena  was  founded  and,  in  1547,  that  of 
Popayan.  In  1553  came  the  Franciscan  Fray  Juan  Barrios 
with  a  bull  of  Julius  III  by  which  the  see  of  Santa  Marta  was 
transferred  to  Santa  Fe  and  erected  into  an  archbishopric,  thus 
sundering  it  from  the  metropolis  of  Lima.  Santa  Marta  was 
reduced  to  an  abbacy,  to  be  subsequently  re-erected.  Cartagena 


1  Jose*  Manuel  Groot,  Historia  eclesiastica  y  civil  de  Nueva  Granada,  I,  1,  7, 
98  (Bogotd,  1869-71). 

1 J.  A.  Garcia  y  Garcia,  Relaciones  de  los  Vireyes  del  Nuevo  Reyno  de  Granada, 
pp.  xvi-xix  (New  York,  1869). 

(453) 


454  NEW  OR  AN  AD  A 

was  dismembered  from  Santo  Domingo  and  the  archiepiscopal 
province  included  it  with  Popayan  and  Santa  Marta.  In  the 
absence  of  the  Inquisition,  Archbishop  Barrios  exercised  its  func- 
tions and,  in  a  series  of  Synodal  Constitutions,  issued  in  1556,  he 
ordered  that  no  books  should  be  possessed  or  sold  without  being 
first  examined  by  the  bishop  or  his  deputies,  under  the  penalty 
of  fifty  pesos.1 

When,  in  1570,  the  tribunal  of  Lima  was  established,  its  author- 
ity extended  over  all  the  Spanish  possessions  from  Panamd,  to 
the  south.  The  organization  of  so  extended  a  territory  was  a 
work  of  time  and  the  material  at  hand  for  it  was  of  the  worst 
description,  as  we  have  seen  in  the  preceding  chapter.  It  was 
not  until  1577  that  Inquisitor  Cerezuela  appointed  a  commissioner 
for  Santa  Fe,  when  his  choice  fell  upon  D.  Lope  Clavijo,  dean  of  the 
metropolitan  chapter.  In  the  exercise  of  his  new  authority, 
Clavijo  naturally  became  involved  in  bitter  quarrels  with  the 
archbishop,  Luis  Zapata  de  Cardenas.  His  character  reflected 
no  credit  on  the  Holy  Office,  if  it  be  true  as  reported  that  his 
official  apartments  became  a  receptacle  for  women,  on  some  of 
whom  he  committed  violence,  and  that  the  nuns  of  Tunja  were 
obliged  to  forbid  his  entrance  into  their  parlor,  in  order  to  escape 
his  licentious  conversation.  The  Commissioner  of  Popayan, 
Gonzalo  de  Torres,  was  no  better  and  was  the  source  of  infinite 
trouble  to  the  bishop,  until  the  visitador,  Juan  Ruiz  de  Prado, 
summoned  him  to  trial  in  Lima,  on  a  prosecution  containing 
twenty  charges.  He  seems,  in  1589,  to  have  been  deprived  of  his 
office,  which,  as  Archbishop  Lobo  Guerrero  said  to  the  Suprema, 
he  used  only  as  a  means  of  committing  offences  against  God. 
We  hear  also  of  Juan  Garcia,  Commissioner  of  Cumand,  appointed 
by  Inquisitor  Ulloa,  as  a  reward  for  committing  perjury  against 
an  enemy  of  the  latter.  His  adulteries  and  incests  with  maids, 
wives  and  widows,  mothers,  daughters  and  sisters,  were  notorious 
and  he  had  caused  the  death  of  more  than  a  hundred  Indian 
laborers  without  baptism  or  confession.  Like  the  others,  he  only 

1  Groot,  I,  84,  504. 


FOUNDATION  455 

sought  the  place  for  the  protection  afforded  from  punishment 
for  his  crimes.1 

Under  worthies  such  as  these,  it  is  easy  to  understand  that 
little  attention  was  paid  to  the  purification  of  the  faith  among 
the  colonists.  The  cases  sent  to  Lima  for  trial  were  few  and 
unimportant.  There  were  no  Protestants  among  them;  the  only 
accusation  of  Judaism  was  that  of  Juan  de  Herrera,  in  1592,  of 
which  he  was  absolved  in  1595,  after  undergoing  torture;  the 
rest  were  the  ordinary  run  of  inquisitorial  business — sorcery, 
bigamy,  blasphemy  and  propositions,  more  or  less  innocent. 
That  the  commissioners,  however,  did  not  neglect  opportunities 
that  presented  themselves  may  be  assumed  from  the  case  of  Juan 
Fernandez,  a  merchant  who,  in  1588,  denounced  himself  to  the 
Commissioner  of  Cartagena  because,  on  hearing  that  a  man  had 
hanged  himself  he  had  exclaimed  "May  God  forgive  him!" 
This  proposition  was  decided  to  be  heretical;  Ferndndez  was 
arrested,  with  sequestration  of  property,  and  was  sentenced  to 
abjure  de  levi,  to  hear  mass  as  a  penitent,  and  to  pay  a  fine  of  a 
hundred  pesos.2 

It  was  evident  that,  if  the  faith  was  to  be  properly  guarded, 
some  authoritative  tribunal  nearer  than  Lima  or  Mexico  was 
necessary  for  the  vast  territory  which  included  the  whole  sweep 
of  the  Antilles  and  the  coast  of  Tierra  Firme  from  Panamd  to 
Guiana.*  As  early  as  April  8,  1580,  Inquisitor  Cerezuela  wrote 
that  the  people  of  New  Granada  were  asking  for  one,  in  view  of 
their  distance  from  Lima;  this  was  great — fully  six  hundred 
leagues — and  there  would  be  no  inconvenience  in  such  a  step 
except  that  he  has  understood  that  there  were  no  suitable  persons 
there  to  serve  as  consultors  and  calificadores.3  Again,  in  1600, 
Inquisitor  Ordonez  y  Flores  represented  to  the  Suprema  the  enor- 
mous extent  of  the  territory  assigned  to  the  Lima  tribunal  and 
suggested  two  new  ones — one  at  La  Plata  and  the  other  at 


1 J.  T.  Medina,  Historia  del  Tribunal  del  Santo  Oficio  de  la  Inquisicion  de  Carta- 
gena de  las  Indias,  pp.  19-23,  430  (Santiago  de  Chile,  1899). 

2  Ibidem,  pp.  27,  29.  8  Ibidem,  p.  423. 


456  NEW  OR  AN  AD  A 

Santa  Fe.  The  latter  should  include  the  sees  of  Popayan,  Carta- 
gena, Santa  Marta  and  Venezuela,  making  a  district  four  hun- 
dred leagues  in  length,  in  which  it  was  impossible  to  provide 
commissioners;  at  present  there  was  but  one,  with  whom  com- 
munication was  so  difficult  that  sometimes  two  years  passed 
without  hearing  from  him.  A  year  earlier,  in  1599,  Archbishop 
Lobo  Guerrero  had  written  to  the  king  to  the  same  effect.  He 
described  the  land  as  the  most  vicious  and  sinful  in  the  Spanish 
dominions,  and  the  faith  as  on  the  point  of  destruction;  the  dis- 
tance to  Lima  was  so  great  that  offenders  either  died  or  escaped 
on  the  road  and  there  was  no  money  to  meet  the  cost  of  sending 
them.1 

The  same  cry  went  up  from  the  islands.  In  1594  the  Council 
of  Indies  suggested  to  the  king  that,  in  view  of  the  failure  of  all 
efforts  to  suppress  the  dealings  of  the  people  of  Santo  Domingo 
with  the  English  and  French  corsairs,  and  with  pirates  of  all 
nations,  the  inquisitor-general  should  commission  the  Archbishop 
of  Santo  Domingo  as  an  inquisitor.  On  this  being  submitted 
to  the  Suprema  it  replied  that  there  were  disadvantages  in  the 
plan  and  the  true  remedy  would  be  to  establish  a  tribunal  on 
the  island,  which  could  be  done  on  the  most  economical  basis. 
Philip  II  ordered  a  junta  of  a  member  of  each  council  to  consider 
a  grant  of  inquisitorial  power  to  the  archbishop  for  a  term  of 
three  or  four  years.2  Nothing  was  done.  The  king  shrank  from 
the  expense  of  a  new  tribunal  and  the  Suprema  was  too  jealous 
of  the  episcopate  to  delegate  its  power  to  the  archbishop.  A 
similar  fate  awaited  a  complaint  of  Bishop  Martin  of  Puerto 
Rico,  in  1606,  as  to  the  influx  of  heretic  traders  and  sailors  with 
their  books,  to  remedy  which  he  urged  that  a  tribunal  be  estab- 
lished in  Santo  Domingo,  or  that  delegated  power  be  granted  to 
the  bishops,  including  authority  to  appoint  alguaziles  and  famil- 
iars with  the  recognized  privileges  and  exemptions.8 


1  Medina,  pp.  37-41. 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  45,  fol.  182. 

1  Medina,  p.  434. 


FOUNDATION  457 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  many  representations  of  the  same 
import  poured  in  upon  the  court  and  finally,  in  1608,  the  Council 
of  Indies  formally  urged  the  erection  of  a  tribunal  in  Santo 
Domingo.  After  due  discussion,  it  was  resolved  to  include  in  the 
district  all  the  lands  surrounding  the  Caribbean,  except  Central 
America,  and,  as  its  inquisitors  subsequently  boasted,  it  enjoyed 
the  most  extensive  territories  of  any  tribunal,  embracing  the 
archbishoprics  of  both  Santa  Fe  and  Santo  Domingo  and  the 
bishoprics  of  Cartagena,  Panama,  Santa  Marta,  Popayan,  Venez- 
uela, Puerto  Rico  and  Santiago  de  Cuba.1  Its  seat  was  fixed 
at  Cartagena,  as  a  central  point  and  leading  port  of  entry,  which 
had  had  time  to  recover  from  its  devastation  by  Drake  in  1585. 
Its  position  and  its  safe  and  capacious  harbor,  easily  defensible 
by  fortifications,  rendered  it  the  entrepot  of  the  trade  with  the 
Pacific,  and  the  place  where  the  treasures  of  the  colonies  were 
gathered  for  transhipment  to  Spain,  while  the  pearl  fishery  of 
Margarita  and  the  productions  of  a  province  rich  in  mineral  and 
agricultural  wealth  gave  it  a  large  and  lucrative  commerce.  As 
the  seat  of  a  tribunal  it  had  the  advantage  that,  unlike  Lima  and 
Mexico,  it  was  not  a  capital  where  the  humors  of  inquisitors  could 
be  in  some  slight  degree  controlled  by  a  viceroy  and  a  royal 
Audiencia.  They  had  only  to  deal  directly  with  a  local  governor 
and  municipal  authorities  on  the  one  side,  and  with  a  simple 
bishop  on  the  other;  there  was  little  to  restrain  them,  short  of 
the  Suprema  beyond  the  Atlantic,  and  we  shall  see  that  they 
took  full  advantage  of  their  position  in  the  endless  embroilments 
which  formed  their  chief  occupation.  The  history  of  the  tribunal 
is  to  be  found  not  so  much  in  its  autos  de  fe  as  in  the  guerrilla 
war  which  for  a  century  it  maintained  with  the  authorities,  civil 
and  ecclesiastical,  rendering  decent  and  orderly  government 
impossible  and  going  far  to  explain  the  decadence  and  decrepi- 
tude of  the  colony. 

Extensive  as  was  the  district  of  the  tribunal,  it  sought  to  extend 
its  authority  still  farther  over  Florida.  As  early  as  1606  there 

1  Medina,  p.  46. 


458  NEW  GRANADA 

is  a  curious  letter  from  Fray  Juan  Cabezas,  Bishop  of  Cuba, 
reciting  that  the  tribunal  of  Mexico  had  appointed  Fray  Francisco 
Carranco  as  commissioner  in  Havana — under  what  authority 
does  not  appear.  On  the  news  of  his  coming  the  good  bishop 
fled  from  Havana  and  took  refuge  in  St.  Augustine,  whence  he 
despatched  his  provisor  to  Spain  to  protest  against  the  announced 
intentions  of  Carranco  to  include  Florida  within  his  jurisdiction. 
This  had  caused  lively  anxiety  among  the  garrison,  some  three 
hundred  in  number,  who  with  the  friars  were  the  only  Spaniards 
there.  The  Indians  as  yet  were  so  little  rooted  in  the  faith  that 
recently  in  the  missions  they  had  slain  four  or  five  of  the  mis- 
sionaries. There  were,  he  adds,  many  women  and  children,  for 
most  of  the  soldiers  were  married  and  the  effort  was  made  to 
induce  all  to  marry,  for  the  hardships  of  the  place  were  such  that, 
without  these  ties,  the  governor  would  not  venture  to  send  any  one 
away  with  the  expectation  of  his  return.1  In  1621  there  was 
some  discussion  as  to  sending  a  commissioner  there,  but  nothing 
was  done.  Then,  in  1630,  Inquisitor  Agustin  Ugarte  y  Saravia 
reported  from  Cartagena  that  he  had  sent  to  the  Governor  of 
St.  Augustine,  Luis  de  Rojas  y  Borja,  commissions  in  blank 
for  a  commissioner  and  familiar,  fearing  that,  if  appointees  were 
sent,  he  would  not  receive  them,  as  the  settlement  was  wholly 
military,  even  the  Franciscan  missionaries  being  rated  as  soldiers.2 
It  is  not  likely  that  the  governor  filled  out  the  commissions,  for 
Florida  remained  deprived  of  the  blessing  of  the  Holy  Office.  In 
1692  another  attempt  was  made.  The  Cartagena  tribunal 
appointed  Fray  Pedro  de  Lima  as  commissioner  with  power  to 
nominate  subordinates,  without  requiring  proofs  of  limpieza. 
Of  this  he  availed  himself  to  create  a  notary,  an  alguazil  mayor 
and  four  familiars,  thus  establishing  a  tribunal  of  his  own. 
The  governor,  Don  Diego  de  Quiroga  y  Lanada,  took  the 
alarm  and  wrote  earnestly  to  the  Council  of  Indies.  All  this, 
he  said,  was  simply  to  escape  the  royal  jurisdiction;  Fray 
Pedro,  as  a  friar,  was  ineligible  to  the  post  of  commissioner;  the 

1  Medina,  p.  433.  '  Ibidem,  pp.  155,  163. 


FLORIDA  459 

tribunal  of  Cartagena  had  no  jurisdiction  over  Florida,  where, 
by  the  Concordias,  there  was  to  be  no  Inquisition  and,  if  cases  of 
faith  arose,  they  were  to  be  treated  by  the  cura  or  the  ecclesiastical 
Vicariate.  The  Council  of  Indies,  December  9,  1695,  reported 
this  to  the  king,  asking  that  the  Suprema  be  told  to  order  the 
Cartagena  tribunal  to  desist;  to  this  Carlos  II  assented  and  the 
attempt  to  establish  an  Inquisition  in  Florida  seems  to  have  ended 
here.1  

1  MSS.  of  Library  of  University  of  Halle,  Yc,  17. — Archive  de  Simancas,  Inqui- 
sicion,  Libro  60,  fol.  352;  Lib.  61,  fol.  524,  534. 

It  does  not  seem  that  the  tribunal  of  Cartagena  had  any  part  in  a  curious 
attempt  to  introduce  the  Inquisition  into  Louisiana,  which  was  ceded  to  Spain 
by  the  Treaty  of  Paris  in  1762.  The  disaffected  colonists  drove  out  their  new 
masters  in  1768,  but  were  subdued  the  next  year  by  O'Reilly.  In  1772  the 
Governor,  Don  Luis  de  Unzaga,  in  a  report  to  the  Bishop  of  Havana,  said  "It 
is  not  the  practice  here  to  force  any  one  to  submit  to  the  Church,  and  the  process 
of  excommunication  is  held  in  utter  abomination."  This  toleration  continued 
and,  in  1789,  the  Governor  Estevan  Mir6  was  surprised  to  receive  from  Fray 
Antonio  de  Sedella — one  of  a  band  of  Spanish  Capuchins  who  had  been  sent  to 
New  Orleans  in  1772 — a  communication  stating  that,  in  a  letter  of  December  5th, 
he  had  received  from  the  proper  authority  a  commission  as  commissioner  of  the 
Inquisition,  with  instructions  to  perform  his  duties  with  the  utmost  zeal  and 
fidelity;  that,  having  made  his  investigations  with  the  greatest  secrecy  and  pre- 
caution, he  notified  the  governor  that,  in  execution  of  his  instructions,  he  might 
soon,  at  some  late  hour  of  the  night,  deem  it  necessary  to  require  some  guards 
to  assist  him  in  his  operations.  That  same  night,  April  29th,  he  was  aroused 
from  sleep  to  find  at  his  door  an  officer  with  a  file  of  grenadiers,  when  he  thanked 
them  and  said  that  he  had  no  use  for  them  that  night.  To  his  astonishment 
he  was  told  that  he  was  under  arrest;  he  was  hurried  on  board  a  vessel  which 
sailed  the  next  day  for  Cadiz,  and  the  Inquisition  was  nipped  in  the  bud.  Mir6 
seems  to  have  been  called  upon  for  an  explanation,  for  in  a  despatch  of  June  3d 
he  declared  that  he  shuddered  when  he  read  Sedella's  note.  He  had  been  ordered 
to  foster  immigration  from  the  United  States,  under  pledge  of  no  molestation  on 
account  of  religion,  and  the  mere  name  of  the  Inquisition  in  New  Orleans  would 
not  only  check  immigration  but  would  be  capable  of  driving  away  those  who 
had  come,  and,  in  spite  of  his  action  with  Sedella,  he  dreaded  the  most  fatal  conse- 
quences from  the  mere  suspicion  of  the  causes  of  his  dismissal.  His  justification 
seems  to  have  been  accepted,  for  the  attempt  was  abandoned. — Gayarre,  History 
of  Louisiana.  The  Spanish  Domination,  pp.  56,  69,  269-71  (New  York,  1854). — 
Fortier,  History  of  Louisiana,  II,  62,  140,  327. 

It  may  be  assumed  that  the  motive  of  commissioning  Sedella  was  rather  politi- 
cal than  religious.  The  uprising  in  France  was  calling  for  active  measures  by 
the  Inquisition  in  Spain  to  keep  out  revolutionary  principles;  Louisiana  was 
French  and  its  loyalty  to  Spain  was  doubtful,  so  that  the  Inquisition  would  be 
useful  both  as  a  source  of  information  and  an  instrument  of  repression. 


460  NEW  GRANADA 

On  June  29,  1610,  Mateo  de  Salcedo  and  Juan  de  Manozca — 
the  latter  a  name  of  evil  import  to  the  Spanish  colonies — the 
newly  appointed  inquisitors  for  Cartagena,  set  sail  from  Cadiz, 
with  a  fiscal,  alguazil,  notary  and  messenger,  and  power  to  appoint 
all  necessary  subordinates,  whose  commissions  would  be  issued 
by  the  Suprema.  On  August  9th  they  arrived  at  Santo  Domingo, 
where  they  were  received  with  all  honor  and  published  the  Edict 
of  Faith;  they  received  some  self -denunciations,  they  appointed 
the  Dominican  Provincial  as  temporary  commissioner,  and  the 
archbishop  surrendered  the  papers  of  all  cases  heard  by  him  and 
his  predecessors.  Sailing  on  September  4th,  they  reached  Carta- 
gena on  the  21st,  where  their  reception  by  the  civil  and  ecclesias- 
tical authorities  was  conducted  with  great  pomp.  On  the  26th 
the  royal  letters  were  read  and  the  oaths  of  obedience  taken;  three 
houses  were  rented  for  their  occupation  until  a  suitable  building 
could  be  rented.  The  king  allowed  them  8000  pesos  for  their 
installation,  with  which  they  bought  the  houses  in  which  they 
were  lodged,  paying  half  in  cash  and,  with  the  remainder  of  the 
money,  building  a  prison  with  thirteen  cells.1  For  the  support 
of  the  officials,  as  in  the  case  of  Mexico  and  Lima,  the  king  pro- 
vided a  subvention  of  8400  ducats  a  year,  until  the  fines  and  con- 
fiscations should  suffice  to  defray  expenses;  but,  profiting  by 
experience,  he  endeavored  to  guard  against  the  habitual  deceit 
of  the  tribunals.  In  his  cedula  of  March  8,  1610,  to  the  treasury 
officials  of  Cartagena,  he  ordered  that  sum  to  be  paid  out  of  any 
funds  in  the  treasury  or,  if  those  were  not  sufficient,  then  out  of 
what  came  in  from  the  province,  but,  in  order  to  know  how  much 
of  this  subvention  should  be  paid,  the  receiver  of  the  tribunal 
was  required  to  furnish  every  year  a  statement  of  the  confiscations 
and  of  all  moneys  applicable  to  the  salaries,  which  were  to  be 
duly  deducted  from  the  treasury  payments.2  We  shall  see,  as  in 
Mexico  and  Peru,  how  fruitless  was  the  precaution  against  auda- 
cious inquisitorial  mendacity. 


1  Medina,  pp.  42-50,  76.— Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Leg.  1465,  fol.  23. 

2  Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  40,  fol.  51. 


EARLY  OPERATIONS  461 

The  tribunal  found  little  to  do  in  justification  of  its  existence. 
It  was  not  until  February  2,  1614,  that  it  held  its  first  auto  de  fe, 
in  which  it  presented  about  thirty  penitents,  whose  offences  con- 
sisted of  trivial  propositions,  blasphemies,  superstitious  arts  and 
the  like.  Nevertheless  the  ceremonies  were  conducted  with  all 
solemnity  to  impress  the  population,  and  a  long  and  grandiloquent 
report  was  sent  to  the  Suprema.  Four  readers  of  the  sentences 
were  employed,  so  that  the  reading  could  be  continuous,  yet 
such  was  the  verbosity  that  the  ceremonies  lasted  from  half -past 
nine  in  the  morning  until  after  sunset  and  the  auto  had  to  be 
finished  by  torch-light.  There  were  about  a  dozen  sentences  of 
scourging  through  the  streets  and  when,  on  the  next  afternoon,  the 
infliction  was  to  commence,  a  motley  crowd  of  negroes,  mestizos, 
mulattos  and  Spaniards,  estimated  at  four  thousand,  assembled, 
armed  with  oranges  and  other  fruits  wherewith  to  pelt  the 
victims.  The  escort  provided  for  them  was  afraid  to  venture 
forth  until  the  inquisitors  made  proclamation  threatening  a 
hundred  lashes  for  any  such  manifestation  of  pious  zeal,  when 
every  one  dropped  his  missile  and  the  punishment  was  carried 
out  in  peace.1 

Besides  these  there  had  been  despatched  in  the  audience- 
chamber  sixteen  cases,  one  of  which  is  worth  mentioning  as  an 
example  of  the  spirit  in  which  the  inquisitors  commenced  their 
duties.  For  some  matter  of  slight  importance,  Dona  Lorenza  de 
Acereto,  a  noble  married  woman,  had  been  penanced  by  the  epis- 
copal provisor  Almanso,  prior  to  the  founding  of  the  tribunal. 
Probably  stimulated  by  the  Edict  of  Faith  she  was  impelled  to 
denounce  herself  to  it  and  Manozca,  who  had  some  private  grudge 
to  satisfy,  imprisoned  her  for  eight  months  and  then  sentenced 
her  to  a  fine  of  4000  ducats  and  exile  for  two  years.  When  the 
sentence  was  read,  she  appealed  to  the  inquisitor-general  but, 
as  she  was  leaving  the  room,  she  was  warned  that  she  would  be 
immured  for  life  in  the  secret  prison  and,  in  dread  of  this,  she 
withdrew  the  appeal.  It  chanced  that  Almanso  was  soon  after- 


1  Medina,  pp.  82-96. 


462  NEW  GRANADA 

wards  sent  to  Madrid  by  his  bishop  to  complain  of  the  tribunal; 
he  represented  this  matter  to  the  Suprema,  which  sent  for  the 
papers  of  the  trial  and,  on  examining  them,  suspended  the  case 
as  groundless.1 

It  was  in  unimportant  routine  work  of  this  kind  that  the  inquisi- 
tors employed  the  intervals  of  their  quarrels  with  the  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  authorities.  Cartagena  numbered  a  population  of 
only  five  hundred  Spaniards;  the  rest  were  negro  slaves,  Indians 
and  the  half-castes  so  numerous  in  the  Spanish  colonies.  The 
Indians  were  not  subject  to  inquisitorial  jurisdiction  and  among 
the  whites  there  was  not  intellectual  energy  sufficient  to  produce 
serious  heresy.  Manozca,  in  fact,  in  a  letter  of  March  17,  1622, 
to  the  Suprema  describes  them  as  wholly  devoted  to  the  pursuit 
of  gain  and  utterly  regardless  of  honor  and  reputation,  from 
the  Governor  down.  There  is  no  one,  he  says,  who  will  trouble 
himself  with  useful  works,  and  virtue  and  honor  are  contraband, 
for  they  are  only  prized  where  there  are  virtuous  and  honorable 
men.2  There  were  left  the  negroes  and  mixed  races,  ignorant  and 
superstitious.  The  slaves  had  brought  from  the  Guinea  coast 
the  mysteries  of  Obeah  and  dark  practices  of  sorcery.  The  native 
Indians  had  ample  store  of  superstitions,  to  cure  or  to  injure,  to 
provoke  love  or  hatred;  the  colonists  had  their  own  credulous 
beliefs,  to  which  they  added  implicit  faith  in  those  of  the  inferior 
races.  The  land  was  overrun  with  this  combination  of  the  occult 
arts  of  three  continents,  all  of  which  were  regarded  by  the  Inqui- 
sition, not  as  idle  fancies,  but  as  the  exercise  of  supernatural 
powers,  involving  express  or  implicit  pact  with  the  demon. 
Had  the  tribunal  seriously  labored  to  eradicate  them,  it  would 
have  had  ample  work  for  its  energies,  but  the  offenders  were 
slaves  or  paupers;  there  was  neither  honor  nor  profit  in  their  prose- 
cution, and  consequently  no  energy.  Indeed  Manozca,  in  the 
letter  just  quoted,  endeavored  to  be  released  from  the  task- 
perhaps  the  only  instance  on  record  of  an  inquisitor  desiring 


1  Medina,  pp.  100-1. 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  30,  fol.  180. 


WITCHCRAFT  463 

to  abandon  a  portion  of  the  jurisdiction  for  which  the  Holy  Office 
was  wont  to  struggle  so  desperately. 

He  gives  a  fearful  account  of  the  witchcraft  practised  by  the 
negro  slaves  in  the  mines  of  Saragossa,  in  Antioquia,  who  kill, 
cripple  and  maim  men  and  women  and  suffocate  children  and 
destroy  the  fruits  of  the  earth.  There  are  about  four  thousand 
of  them,  brought  from  Guinea,  who,  though  baptized,  are  wholly 
untaught  in  the  faith,  and  are  more  like  brutes  than  men.  The 
missionaries  among  them  pay  no  heed  to  their  instruction  but  are 
wholly  absorbed  in  the  search  for  gold.  The  district  is  remote  and 
mountainous  and  only  to  be  reached  by  footpaths;  the  smallest 
coin  there  is  gold  and  to  arrest  a  culprit  costs  more  than  his  value 
as  a  slave.  The  tribunal  has  no  funds  to  bring  them  hither  for 
trial  and  their  maintenance  in  gaol  is  a  heavy  burden  on  the 
owners.  Four  have  been  tried  and  condemned  to  reconciliation 
and  perpetual  prison,  but  the  Inquisition  has  no  penitential  prison 
and,  if  there  was  one,  they  would  starve  to  death,  as  they  could 
not  earn  their  support  and  the  alms  of  the  pious  would  not  reach 
so  miserable  a  set  of  beings.  They  have  therefore  been  put  into 
the  Hospital  General,  where  they  can  be  employed  and  hear  mass 
and  perform  their  penance.  As  for  the  great  mass  of  the  culprits, 
it  would  be  impossible  for  the  tribunal  to  arrest  and  try  them — 
the  cost  would  be  enormous  and  the  result,  according  to  law, 
would  be  to  set  them  free,  which  would  fill  the  land  with  demons, 
nor  would  the  owners  permit  their  capture,  in  the  certainty  of 
losing  them.  To  meet  these  difficulties  Manozca  therefore  sug- 
gests a  general  pardon,  after  which  the  civil  authorities  shall  have 
cognizance  of  their  crimes  and  punish  them  otherwise  than  with 
the  benignity  habitual  with  the  Inquisition.  The  Suprema 
was  hardly  prepared  thus  to  surrender  even  so  unprofitable  a 
portion  of  its  jurisdiction  and,  in  forwarding  this  letter  to  the  king, 
urged  that  an  Edict  of  Grace  should  be  proclaimed;  that  he  should 
assist  the  tribunal  with  the  funds  necessary  for  the  support  of 
the  officials  and  the  expense  of  its  functions,  and  that  the  Council 
of  Indies  should  order  the  royal  officials  to  inflict  severe  punish- 


464  NEW  ORANADA 

ment,  in  so  far  as  they  had  jurisdiction,  and  should  assist  the 
Inquisition  in  making  arrests  and  other  acts.  To  this  Philip  IV 
drily  replied  that  the  Council  of  Indies  would  order  the  governors 
to  apply  such  remedies  as  they  deemed  advisable.1  All  parties 
thus  sought  to  wash  their  hands  of  this  troublesome  and  costly 
affair,  and  witchcraft  and  sorcery  continued  to  flourish. 

They  were  not  confined  to  the  slaves  in  the  mines  of  Antioquia 
and,  some  ten  years  later,  there  was  an  outburst  which  offered 
fairer  inducements  to  repay  prosecution.  A  great  assembly  of 
witches  was  discovered  among  the  negroes  of  the  town  of  Tolu — 
an  accessible  sea-port,  about  sixty-five  miles  from  Cartagena — 
where  the  witnesses  testified  to  all  the  classical  features  of  the 
Sabbat — flying  through  the  air,  dancing  around  a  goat,  kissing 
him  retro  and  all  the  customary  performances.  Since  the  great 
auto  de  fe  of  witches  at  Logrono  in  1610,  the  Suprema  had  grown 
skeptical  and  cautious  as  to  these  superstitions,  and  had  impressed 
on  the  tribunals  the  necessity  of  acting  with  great  reserve  in  all 
such  cases.  In  reporting  this  matter  therefore,  September  25, 
1632,  the  inquisitors  said  that  they  had  observed  these  instruc- 
tions and  had  arrested  only  a  mulatto  woman  and  a  mestiza, 
who  had  persistently  denied  the  charges.  Still  the  testimony 
continued  to  pour  in,  spreading  the  epidemic  to  Cartagena  and 
implicating  Spaniards  of  consideration  and  property,  for  witnesses 
who  confessed  to  having  been  at  the  Sabbat  were  free  to  designate 
whomsoever  they  chose  as  having  been  present — a  fact  which 
explains  the  rapid  multiplication  of  accomplices,  whenever  a 
persecution  commenced.  Animated  by  the  prospect  thus  opened, 
the  inquisitors  threw  aside  their  caution;  they  accepted  the 
most  absurd  stories  and  attributed  to  witchcraft  many  cases  of 
ordinary  sickness  occurring  in  the  town.  They  erected  additional 
prisons  to  receive  the  culprits  and  sentenced  to  burning  two  of 
those  accused  as  leaders — negresses  named  Elena  de  Vitoria  and 
Paula  de  Eguiluz,  but  the  sentence  of  the  former  was  revoked 
by  the  Suprema  and,  when  that  of  the  latter  was  received,  it 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  30,  fol.  178. 


BLASPHEMY  465 

sent  orders  that  no  sentence  of  relaxation  should  be  executed 
until  a  copy  of  the  process  was  submitted  to  it. 

Torture  was  freely  employed,  resulting  in  an  auto  de  fe  held, 
March  26,  1634,  where  twenty-one  witches  were  exhibited,  whose 
punishment  mostly  consisted  of  scourging,  although  one,  Ana  de 
Avila,  a  mestiza  widow,  who  had  overcome  seven  turns  of  the 
mancuerda  in  her  torture,  was  fined  1000  pesos.  A  sentence  of 
absolution  was  read  of  Ana  Beltran,  who  had  been  tortured 
without  confession  for  an  hour  and  a  half  and  had  died  of  its 
effects.  This  was  followed,  June  1,  1636,  by  another  auto  with 
sixteen  penitents,  among  whom  was  Elena  de  Vitoria.  Another 
was  Guiomar  de  Anaya,  who  had  overcome  the  torture  and  was 
sentenced  to  exile  and  a  fine  of  200  ducats.  Paula  de  Eguiluz 
was  reconciled  in  an  auto  of  March  25,  1638,  after  six  years  of 
imprisonment,  and  was  condemned  to  two  hundred  lashes  and 
irremissible  prison.  It  seems  that  she  enjoyed  a  high  reputation 
as  a  physician  and  was  allowed  to  leave  the  prison  in  the  practice 
of  her  profession,  numbering  among  her  patients  even  the  inquisi- 
tors and  the  bishop,  Cristobal  de  Lazarraga.  She  was  permitted 
to  cast  off  the  sanbenito  and  appeared  in  a  mantle  bordered  with 
gold  and  in  a  sedan  chair;  she  earned  much  money  and  was 
charitable  in  relieving  the  necessities  of  her  fellow-prisoners.1 

In  the  other  chief  source  of  inquisitorial  business — blasphemy — 
the  mercifulness  of  the  Suprema  brought  about  a  curious  and 
unexpected  result.  The  most  usual  expletive,  reniego  a  Dios — 
I  renounce  God — was  reckoned  as  heretical  and  therefore  subject 
to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Holy  Office,  but  it  was  so  frequent 
that  the  Suprema  ordered  it  to  be  punished  only  with  a  repri- 
mand. As  the  inquisitors  complained,  in  a  letter  of  June  28, 1619, 
the  effect  of  this  was  that,  when  a  master  flogged  a  slave,  at  the 
first  lash  the  latter  promptly  renounced  God;  he  thus  became, 
on  the  spot,  subject  to  the  exclusive  jurisdiction  of  the  tribunal; 
the  flogging  ceased  and  he  was  handed  over  to  it,  to  go  through 
the  formality  of  a  trial,  at  the  end  of  which  he  was  discharged 

1  Medina,  pp.  211-19,  225-6. 
30 


466  NEW  GRANADA 

with  a  scolding.  This  was  a  process  which  might  be  repeated 
indefinitely,  to  the  manifest  detriment  of  the  discipline  indis- 
pensable to  slavery.1 

It  was  not  till  the  tribunal  had  been  established  for  more  than 
ten  years  that  it  had  any  serious  business  in  vindicating  the  faith. 
In  an  auto  de  fe  celebrated  March  16,  1622,  there  were  four  negro 
witches  reconciled,  two  negro  sorceresses  punished  and  one  biga- 
mist banished  from  the  Indies.  In  addition  to  these  there  was 
a  Protestant  burnt  alive — an  Englishman  named  Adam  Edon 
(Haydon?).  He  had  been  sent,  in  1618,  by  an  English  merchant, 
to  purchase  tobacco  in  Cumand,  where  he  was  arrested  in  1619 
and  sent  to  Cartagena.  For  two  years  the  most  earnest  endeavors 
to  wean  him  from  his  errors  were  fruitless,  and  his  fate  was  inevi- 
table. Manozca,  in  his  report,  described  him  as  a  most  engaging 
person ;  at  the  quemadero  he  was  not  chained  as  usual  to  the  stake, 
but  he  calmly  sat  on  a  faggot  and  remained  motionless  till  life 
was  extinct,  a  veritable  martyr  to  his  convictions.2 

After  this  auspicious  beginning  there  opened  a  prospect  of 
greater  usefulness.  At  an  auto  de  fe  of  June  17,  1626,  solemnized 
with  great  magnificence,  there  were  twenty-two  penitents,  of 
whom  one  was  a  Calvinist  and  seven  were  Judaizers.  Of  the 
latter,  Juan  Vicente  had  already  been  reconciled  in  Coimbra  and 
again  in  Lima.  Under  the  canon  law,  a  single  relapse  entailed 
relaxation;  this  he  had  been  spared  in  Lima,  and  his  persistent 
backsliding  left  no  hope  of  ultimate  conversion,  so  he  was  duly 
consigned  to  the  flames.3  After  this  there  was  an  interval  during 
which  inquisitorial  energy  had  to  be  content  with  witches,  blas- 
phemers and  the  like,  until  the  raid  made  on  the  Portuguese 
merchants  in  Lima  gave  occasion  for  similar  action  in  Cartagena. 
One  of  the  accused,  in  the  former  city,  gave  evidence  against  a 
compatriot  in  the  latter;  it  was  duly  forwarded  and  the  arrest  was 
made  March  15,  1636.  The  circle  spread  until  there  were  twenty- 
one  in  prison.  Torture  was  savagely  employed  and  one  of  the 
prisoners,  Paz  Pinto,  a  man  widely  esteemed,  died  from  its  effects. 

1  Medina,  pp.  118-19.  *  Ibidem,  pp.  168-9.  *  Ibidem,  pp.  175-94. 


SACK  OF  1697  467 

Most  of  the  cases  were  ready  for  an  auto  held  March  25,  1638, 
at  which  eight  were  reconciled  and  nine  were  absolved.  There 
were  no  relaxations,  but  the  confiscations,  as  we  shall  see,  put 
the  tribunal  in  possession  of  ample  funds.1 

Little  remains  to  be  said  as  to  the  activity  of  the  tribunal  in 
its  appropriate  sphere,  although  its  contributions  from  time  to 
time  to  the  Suprema  show  that  it  occasionally  obtained  some 
wealthy  penitent  to  strip,  among  the  inconspicuous  mass  of 
blasphemers,  bigamists  and  sorceresses.  Its  energies  became 
more  and  more  devoted,  during  the  remainder  of  the  century, 
to  internal  dissensions  and  quarrels  with  the  secular  and  eccle- 
siastical authorities,  leaving  small  leisure  for  its  proper  func- 
tions. Such  was  its  inertia  in  this  respect  that  we  are  told  that 
there  was  no  publication  of  the  annual  Edict  of  Faith  between 
1656  and  1818.2  Then  it  was  dealt  a  heavy  blow  in  the  capture 
of  Cartagena,  in  1697,  by  the  French  adventurers  under  the 
Baron  de  Pointis  and  his  buccaneer  allies,  after  which  it  was 
sacked  by  the  latter.  A  few  days  after  the  commencement 
of  the  bombardment  April  10th,  the  tribunal  abandoned  the  city, 
carrying  some  of  its  prisoners  to  Majates,  about  fourteen  leagues 
distant,  where  an  auto  de  fe  was  held,  with  three  penitents, 
and  those  whose  cases  were  not  ready  were  sent  further  inland 
to  Mompox.  When  the  fort  of  Bocachica  was  taken,  the  French 
found  there  nine  prisoners  accused  of  bigamy;  eight  of  these 
joined  the  enemy  and  the  ninth,  Pedro  Sarmiento,  voluntarily 
went  to  Mompox  and  surrendered  himself.  The  town  capitu- 
lated May  6th  and,  when  the  French  entered,  they  promptly 
sought  the  Inquisition,  where  they  took  the  vestments  of  the 
officials  and  the  sanbenitos  and  mitres  of  the  penitents  and  held 
in  the  plaza  a  mock  auto  de  fe,  reading  sentences  and  parodying 
the  solemnities.  Inquisitor  Lazaeta  was  anxious  to  obtain 

1  Medina,  pp.  222-7. 

1  Groot,  II,  473.  This  is  not  strictly  correct.  After  an  interval  of  many  years, 
Inquisitor  Valera  published  the  edict  in  Lent,  1684,  when  it  brought  in  denun- 
ciations which  doubled  the  number  of  cases  in  hand  (Medina,  p.  308).  Probably 
this  was  the  last  until  the  nineteenth  century. 


468  NEW  GRANADA 

possession  of  certain  papers  and  employed  the  good  offices  of 
Don  Sancho  Jimeno,  the  castellan  of  Bocachica,  whose  gallant 
defence  had  earned  the  respect  of  the  enemy.  He  had  been  re- 
released  but  returned  to  Cartagena  to  defend  himself  against 
certain  charges,  after  which  he  requested  of  the  leaders  per- 
mission to  get  the  papers;  the  mere  mention  of  the  Inquisition 
provoked  a  tempest  of  passion,  but  after  it  had  cooled  off  he 
asked  leave  to  get  some  papers  of  his  own  and,  while  collecting 
them,  he  succeeded  in  including  those  desired  by  the  inquisitor. 
After  the  invaders  had  sailed,  Lazaeta  returned  to  Cartagena, 
June  22d.  He  found  the  building  much  damaged  by  the  bom- 
bardment; it  had  been  sacked  and  the  chests  broken  open  and 
left  empty,  but  the  records  were  untouched.  With  a  donation 
which  he  begged  and  12,000  pesos  obtained  from  the  governor, 
he  had  everything  in  order  by  the  end  of  August,  but  this  proved 
the  turning-point  of  the  tribunal  which  thenceforth  declined 
rapidly.1 

Repairs  to  its  habitation  became  necessary  in  1704,  but  these 
were  inefficiently  performed  and,  in  1715,  the  tribunal  was  obliged 
to  shift  its  quarters  to  the  house  of  the  senior  inquisitor  and  even 
this  had  been  so  maltreated  in  the  bombardment  that  it  threat- 
ened to  fall.  The  trouble  culminated  in  1741  when  Admiral 
Vernon  bombarded  Cartagena;  a  bomb  dismantled  the  Inquisition 
and  it  had  to  be  torn  down,  though  the  records  escaped  as  they 
had  prudently  been  transferred  in  advance  to  Tenerife,  near 
Santa  Marta.  It  was  a  quarter  of  a  century  before  Carlos  III, 
in  1766,  granted  for  the  rebuilding  12,600  pesos  from  the  revenues 
of  the  vacant  archbishopric.2 

All  this  was  but  a  symptom  of  the  general  decadence  of  the. 
tribunal.  In  1747  the  Inquisitor,  Francisco  Antonio  de  Ilarduy, 
wrote  that  the  only  consultor  he  had  was  also  the  advocate  of 
the  fisc  and  of  the  accused;  for  three  years  there  had  been  but 
one  calificador,  and  the  provincial  at  Seville  had  been  vainly 
urged  to  send  out  frailes;  there  were  but  two  familiars,  who  were 

1  Medina,  pp.  346-51,  364.— Groot,  I,  331-6.  3  Medina,  pp.  369-70. 


DECADENCE  469 

engrossed  in  earning  their  living  and  no  one  cared  to  accept  the 
position;  for  seven  years  the  Suprema  had  not  taken  the  trouble 
to  reply  to  the  applications  for  advice  and  instructions.  Ilarduy 
vainly  tendered  his  resignation,  but  it  was  not  accepted  until 
at  length  he  obtained  a  transfer  to  Cordova  and  left  Cartagena  in 
1754.  Under  such  conditions  there  was  little  done  and  the 
Inquisition  lost  its  terrors.  The  royal  permission  to  draw  articles 
of  necessity  from  foreign  sources  brought  to  Cartagena  Danish, 
Dutch  and  other  heretic  ships,  in  which  there  came  Jews  whom 
the  governor,  in  spite  of  the  reclamations  of  the  tribunal,  allowed 
to  establish  themselves  and  to  walk  the  streets  like  natives.  The 
tribunal  appealed  to  the  Archbishop-viceroy,  Antonio  Caballero 
y  Gongora,  who  contented  himself  with  ordering  that  the  limi- 
tation of  importations  to  articles  of  necessity  should  be  enforced.1 
A  typical  case  was  that  of  Don  David  de  la  Mota,  who  came  in 
1783,  and  who  made  no  secret  of  being  a  Jew.  The  tribunal 
summoned  him  and  swore  him  in  the  Jewish  fashion,  when  he 
said  that  he  was  born  in  Velez-Malaga;  his  parents  had  been  pen- 
anced and  his  grandfather  had  been  burnt  by  the  tribunal  of 
Granada;  he  had  married  a  Jewess  in  the  Danish  island  of  Santa 
Cruz  and  had  been  circumcised  fifty  years  before  in  Santa  Eusta- 
cia.  It  indicates  the  altered  situation  when  this  case,  which 
formerly  would  have  been  treated  with  little  ceremony,  was  the 
subject  of  doubt  and  discussion.  The  inquisitors  forbore  to 
arrest  him,  for  he  represented  foreign  interests,  which  would 
have  complained  to  the  consul  and  he  to  the  ambassador.  They 
accordingly  shrank  from  the  responsibility  and  let  him  go.  In 
Spain  the  exclusion  of  Jews  was  still  rigidly  enforced  and,  when 
they  reported  their  action  to  the  Suprema,  it  censured  their 
timidity  and  ordered  them  always  to  arrest  such  parties  when 
the  evidence  sufficed.  It  was  the  same  in  other  parts  of  the  dis- 
trict. In  Santo  Domingo  the  governor  was  liberally  inclined  and, 
in  1783,  the  Archbishop  complained  to  the  Suprema  that,  during 
the  previous  year,  a  Jew  named  Jose  Obediente  had  come  and 

1  Medina,  pp.  358,  371. 


470  NEW  OR  AN  AD  A 

was  allowed  to  go  about  freely,  to  entertain  persons  of  distinction 
and  even  to  be  present  in  the  solemnities  of  Holy  Week.  The 
commissioner  had  vainly  appealed  to  the  authorities,  and  the 
archbishop  was  afraid  to  say  anything,  for  fear  of  public  disturb- 
ance. This  year  he  had  come  again,  bringing  six  or  seven  others, 
who  kept  house  and  lived  like  any  other  residents.1  It  was  not 
the  Jews  alone  whom  the  tribunal,  in  its  weakened  state,  was 
afraid  to  attack.  In  1784,  the  royal  auditor  at  Mompox,  Don 
Francisco  Antonio  Antona,  was  denounced  for  having,  at  a 
banquet  given  by  a  priest,  proposed  for  discussion  some  mani- 
festly heretical  propositions.  In  place  of  prosecuting  him,  the 
inquisitors  consulted  the  Suprema  alleging,  as  a  reason  for  their 
timidity,  the  character  of  the  accused,  the  relations  of  his  wife 
with  the  best  families,  and  the  protection  given  to  him  by  the 
viceroys  in  the  conduct  of  his  office.2  A  tribunal  thus  shorn  of 
its  audacity  could  only  be  an  object  of  contempt. 

There  was,  however,  a  little  recrudescence  of  activity  as  the 
progress  of  free-thought  and  the  approach  of  the  Revolution 
called  for  the  exercise  of  the  functions  of  censorship.  This  has 
been  well-nigh  in  abeyance.  The  edicts  prohibiting  books,  as 
sent  out  by  the  Suprema,  were  regularly  published  as  matters  of 
routine,  but  they  were  regarded  by  no  one.  In  fact,  the  intel- 
lectual torpor  of  the  colony  was  so  profound  that  there  was  little 
danger  of  the  spread  of  dangerous  literature.  In  1777  Cartagena 
could  not  even  support  a  small  printing-office,  and  the  inquisitors 
complained  that  they  had  to  copy  the  edicts  by  hand;  there  had 
been  a  printer,  but  the  poor  man  had  sold  his  stock  elsewhere 
and  no  one  had  ventured  to  replace  him.3  Seizures  of  prohibited 
books  had  been  exceedingly  rare.  In  1661  some  copies  had  been 
suppressed  of  "Horas  y  oraciones  devotas,"  printed  in  Paris  in 
1664.  In  1668  there  was  a  little  flurry  when,  on  one  of  the  afflu- 
ents of  the  Orinoco,  a  Dutchman  was  found  in  possession  of 
copies  of  a  work  in  Spanish,  apparently  printed  in  Holland, 
entitled  "Epistola  d  los  Peruleros,"  consisting  of  a  Calvinistic 

1  Medina,  pp.  359-61.  « Ibidem,  pp.  374-6.  •  Ibidem,  p.  378. 


CENSORSHIP  471 

catechism  and  exhorting  the  colonists  to  withdraw  their  allegiance 
from  Spain  and  ally  themselves  with  the  Dutch,  whose  colony 
of  Guiana  was  dangerously  near.  In  1732  a  little  book  called 
"Paraiso  del  alma"  was  seized  in  Santa  Fe  and,  in  1757,  some  copies 
of  Bishop  Palafox's  "Ejercicios  devotos."  The  moral  phase  of 
censorship  had  manifested  itself  in  1736,  when  the  commissioner 
at  Panama  took  from  the  French  astronomers,  on  their  way  to 
the  equator  to  measure  an  arc  of  the  earth's  surface,  an  engrav- 
ing of  a  woman  which  he  regarded  as  indecent,  but  when  he 
sought  to  get  possession  of  another,  said  to  be  even  worse,  they 
assured  him  that  it  had  been  burnt  and  threatened  to  complain 
to  the  king  of  the  insult  offered  to  them.  So,  in  1807,  there  were 
denounced  to  the  tribunal  some  watches  brought  by  a  Danish 
vessel,  of  which  the  cases  were  enamelled  with  indecent  pictures; 
the  enamels  were  destroyed  and  the  watches  were  restored  to 
the  owner.1 

In  1774  a  more  difficult  question  was  forced  upon  the  tribunal. 
Jose*  Celestino  Mutis,  distinguished  both  as  priest  and  physician 
and  professor  in  the  Colegio  Mayor  of  Santa  Fe,  in  1773,  presided 
over  some  conclusions  in  which  the  Copernican  theory  of  the 
solar  system  was  defended.  In  June,  1774,  the  Dominicans 
of  the  Universidad  Tomistica  resolved  to  celebrate  other  con- 
clusions to  prove  the  contrary  by  Scripture  and  St.  Augustin  and 
St.  Thomas,  and  that  the  Copernican  theory  was  intolerable  for 
Catholics,  indefensible  and  prohibited  by  the  Inquisition.  Mutis 
addressed  a  defence  of  Copernicus  to  the  viceroy,  who  sent  a  copy 
to  the  commissioner;  he  transmitted  it  to  the  tribunal,  which 
submitted  it  to  two  calificadores.  One  of  these  reported  that 
the  propositions  were  not  subject  to  theological  censure;  the 
other  held  that  the  Copernican  system  was  opposed  to  Scripture 
and  no  Catholic  could  defend  it.  The  matter  then  passed  into 
the  hands  of  the  inquisitor-fiscal,  who  argued  that  all  authors 
of  greatest  repute  detested  the  system  as  absolutely  contrary  to 
Scripture,  repeatedly  condemned  by  the  Roman  Inquisition  and, 

1  Medina,  pp.  379-80,  390. — Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  25,  fol.  52. 


472  NEW  GRANADA 

as  some  say,  by  Urban  VIII.  He  was  especially  shocked  by 
an  assertion  of  Mutis  that  the  king  had  ordered  all  Spanish  uni- 
versities to  teach  the  works  of  Newton  which  were  based  on 
Copernicus.  Dr.  Mutis,  he  added,  was  the  first  and  only  one  who, 
in  this  kingdom  and  perhaps  in  all  America,  had  publicly  declared 
himself  in  favor  of  this  system.  Thereupon  the  tribunal,  at  a 
loss  what  to  do  in  a  matter  beyond  its  comprehension,  sent  all 
the  papers  to  the  Suprema  for  instructions,  and  the  latter  dis- 
creetly filed  them  away  without  answering.1 

Of  more  practical  importance  was  the  manifesto  of  the  French 
Constituent  Assembly  on  the  rights  of  man,  of  which  a  Spanish 
version  appeared  under  the  title  of  Derechos  del  Hombre.  This 
was  condemned  in  Cartagena  by  edict  published  December  13, 
1789.  Then,  in  1794,  there  was  a  sudden  command  for  its  vigor- 
ous suppression.  In  almost  identical  phrase  the  Viceroys  of  New 
Granada  and  Peru  wrote  to  their  respective  tribunals,  describing 
it  as  a  work  destructive  of  social  order  and  advocating  toleration. 
Every  pains,  they  said,  must  be  taken  to  hunt  up  every  copy 
and  to  ascertain  when  and  how  and  from  whom  they  came. 
The  tribunals  accordingly  exerted  their  utmost  diligence,  but 
were  not  rewarded  by  finding  a  single  copy.2  Probably  equal 
ill-success  attended  their  efforts  to  obey  the  orders  of  the  Suprema 
to  suppress  Gli  Animali  parlanti  of  Giambattista  Casti  and  to 
spare  no  pains  in  ascertaining  the  possessors  of  the  poem  which, 
as  a  clever  satire  directed  against  the  vices  and  follies  of  kings 
and  courts,  was  especially  distasteful  to  an  autocratic  monarch. 
The  work  had  appeared  in  Paris  in  1802  and  these  orders  came 
from  the  Suprema  under  date  of  May  23,  1803,  although  the  for- 
mal decree  suppressing  it  was  not  issued  until  June  23,  1805,  to 
be  followed,  August  6th,  by  a  similar  papal  prohibition.3 


1  Medina,  pp.  380-6. 

2  Ibidem,  pp.  387-9.     During  the  suppression  of  the  Inquisition,  it  was  reprinted 
and  largely  circulated,  forming  the  subject  of  a  severe  edict  in  1814  (Ibid.,  p.  390). 

1  Ibidem,  p.  390.— Suplemento  al  Indice  Expurgatorio,  p.  10  (Madrid,  1805). — 
Index  Pii  PP.  VII,  p.  53  (Romse,  1819). 


QUARRELS  WITH  THE  AUTHORITIES  473 

If  the  results  of  the  labors  of  the  tribunal  in  defence  of  the  faith 
were  thus  meagre,  it  was  far  more  successful  in  its  true  vocation 
of  creating  scandal,  by  incessant  quarrels  with  the  civil  and 
ecclesiastical  authorities,  and  by  its  internal  discords.  Hardly 
had  it  been  organized  when  the  Easter  solemnities  of  1611  offered 
occasion  for  dissension,  over  questions  of  etiquette  and  precedence, 
with  the  secular  and  spiritual  powers,  giving  rise  to  antagonism 
throughout  the  district,  especially  on  the  part  of  the  bishops, 
who  grudged  the  deprivation  of  the  jurisdiction  which  they  had 
been  accustomed  to  exercise  in  matters  of  faith.  They  continued 
to  disregard  the  exclusive  functions  of  the  inquisitors,  who  com- 
plained bitterly  of  them  as  ignorant  prelates,  with  officials  whose 
ignorance  was  equalled  by  their  turbulence;  they  had  few  duties 
to  occupy  them  and  they  desired  to  retain  this  jurisdiction 
because  of  the  hold  which  it  gave  them  over  their  subjects.  It 
probably  would  be  unjust  to  estimate  them  by  one  of  their 
number,  Fray  Juan  Gonzalez  de  Mendoza,  Bishop  of  Popayan, 
who,  on  his  arrival  at  Cartagena  in  1610,  introduced  the  practice 
of  divination  with  sticks,  which  he  asserted  to  be  allowed  by  the 
Inquisition  and  to  be  used  by  the  queen  and  the  Duke  of  Lerma. 
It  spread  rapidly  among  all  classes  and,  as  all  divination  was  held 
to  imply  pact  with  the  demon,  the  inquisitors  were  greatly  exer- 
cised and  inquired  anxiously  of  the  Suprema,  January  31,  1611, 
what  they  should  do  about  it,  to  which  apparently  they  received 
no  answer.1 

Manozca,  arrogant,  unscrupulous  and  ambitious,  was  the  lead- 
ing spirit  of  the  tribunal.  He  speedily  made  it  apparent  that, 
under  his  guidance,  it  was  to  be  the  dominant  power  in  the  com- 
munity, and  that  its  awful  authority  was  to  be  restrained  by  no 
considerations  of  law  or  justice.  The  governor,  Diego  Fernandez 
de  Velasco,  was  good-natured  and  made  every  effort  to  keep  on 
good  terms  with  the  inquisitors,  but  his  moderation  only  encour- 
aged their  insolence  and  at  length,  in  a  letter  of  July  4,  1613,  to 
the  king,  he  poured  forth  his  grievances.  The  tribunal,  he 

1  Medina,  pp.  74-8,  80. 


474  NEW  GRANADA 

said,  sought  to  render  itself  the  supreme  master  and  had  become 
so  feared  that  the  whole  province  was  terrorized,  so  that,  not 
only  for  the  inquisitors  but  for  their  servants  and  slaves,  there 
was  no  law  but  their  own  will.  They  were  accustomed  to  arrest 
butchers,  fishermen,  bakers  and  other  dealers  in  provisions; 
to  seize  with  violence  the  goods  of  merchants  and  to  summon 
and  scold  them  for  objecting.  In  two  cases  Manozca  forced 
parties  who  imported  cargoes  of  slaves  to  give  him  some  of  them, 
whom  he  sold.  They  took,  without  notice,  prisoners  from  the 
public  prisons  and,  on  one  occasion,  when  the  gaoler  asked  for  a 
voucher,  as  requisite  for  his  justification,  the  messenger  wounded 
him  on  the  head  with  his  sword  and  was  not  punished.  The 
governor  added  numerous  instances  of  outrages  on  all  classes, 
winding  up  with  himself,  as  having  been  publicly  proclaimed  as 
excommunicated  in  all  the  churches.1 

The  regular  Orders  had  equal  cause  of  complaint  and  managed, 
with  some  trouble,  to  send  to  Spain  a  procurator  to  represent  that 
everything  in  the  convents  was  regulated  by  Manozca's  powerful 
hand,  whence  it  resulted  that  many  estimable  frailes  were  un- 
justly punished,  while  those  were  untouched  who  deserved  to 
be  castigated  and  reformed.  This  brought  upon  Manozca,  from 
the  Suprema,  a  severe  reprimand  with  orders  to  abstain  from 
such  interference.2  Apparently  the  warning  was  disregarded  if 
we  may  believe  a  memorial  addressed  by  a  fraile,  May  12,  1619, 
to  the  king,  representing  that  to  leave  Manozca  at  his  post  was 
to  keep  a  monster  in  the  seat  of  an  angel  of  light.  This  was 
substantiated  with  ample  details  of  his  scandalous  mode  of  life, 
his  nocturnal  sallies  in  disguise  and  the  general  terror  which  he 
inspired,  for  terrorism  was  the  means  by  which  he  had  become 
the  ruler  of  all.  When  the  secular  authorities  sought  to  banish 
the  courtezans  and  concubines  he  prevented  it  and,  when  the 
preachers  preached  against  them,  he  issued  what  he  called  an 
instruction  de  predicadores  in  which  he  called  them  dishonoring 
names  and  covered  them  with  ridicule.  The  writer  relates  a 


1  Medina,  pp.  129-3L  s  Ibidem,  p.  134, 


QUARRELS  WITH  THE  AUTHORITIES  475 

number  of  cases  by  which  it  appears  that  Manozca  controlled 
the  local  courts  and  officials,  dictating  sentences  and  procuring 
that  his  supporters  escaped  justice  and  won  their  suits,  however 
unrighteous.  Moreover  he  gave  occasion  for  an  indefinite  amount 
of  smuggling;  arrivals  were  reported  to  him  in  advance  of  the 
custom  officials,  and  he  received  bribes — negro  slaves  and  other 
things  of  value — to  enable  the  owners  to  defraud  the  customs — 
a  matter  presumably  easy  of  accomplishment  through  the  super- 
vision of  all  arrivals,  by  which  the  Inquisition  was  empowered 
to  prevent  the  intrusion  of  heretics  and  the  importation  of  heretic 
books.1 

Quarrels  with  the  bishops  were  incessant  and  only  the  bishop 
of  Cuba,  Alfonso  Henriquez  de  Almendariz,  who  was  old  and 
self-willed  and  prompt  in  quarrel,  held  his  own,  leading  to  num- 
erous complaints  of  him  by  the  tribunal.2  Then,  towards  the 
middle  of  1619,  there  came  a  new  governor,  Garcfa  Giron,  with 
whom  there  was  speedily  trouble.  A  negro  slave  of  Inquisitor 
Salcedo  was  refused  meat  by  a  negro  in  the  market ;  he  complained 
to  his  master  who  gave  him  a  paper  requiring  the  dealer  to  supply 
it.  Armed  with  this,  he  struck  the  negro  several  times  with 
the  flat  of  a  machete,  took  what  meat  he  wanted  and  told  the 
man  that,  if  he  wanted  pay,  he  could  send  for  the  money.  There- 
upon Giron  ordered  a  prosecution;  the  inquisitors  sent  for  the 
notary  employed  in  it  and  ordered  him  to  surrender  the  papers 
under  the  customary  threat  of  fine  and  excommunication;  the 
governor  ordered  him  not  to  obey,  but  he  was  finally  obliged  to 
pay  the  fine  and  deliver  the  papers.3 

Complaints  against  Manozca  came  pouring  in  upon  the  Suprema, 
especially  from  members  of  the  regular  Orders,  including  whole 
convents,  until  it  found  itself  obliged  to  have  an  investigation 
made  into  his  life  and  morals.  The  result  justified  the  accusa- 
tions and  it  ordered  him  to  present  himself  in  Madrid.  He  had 
no  trouble  in  gathering  certificates — which  no  one  dared  to  refuse 
— as  to  his  good  character  and  conduct,  with  which  he  sailed  for 

1  Medina,  pp.  135-45.          *  Ibidem,  pp.  103,  154-55.  s  Ibidem,  p.  112. 


476  NEW  GRANADA 

Spain,  towards  the  end  of  July,  1620.  There  he  succeeded  so 
completely  in  exonerating  himself  that,  in  April,  1621,  the  inquisi- 
tor-general wrote  that  his  presence  in  the  court  being  no  longer 
necessary,  for  the  business  on  which  he  had  been  summoned,  he 
had  been  ordered  to  return  to  his  post.  Thus,  after  a  year's 
absence,  he  reoccupied  his  seat  in  the  tribunal,  but  only  for  a 
short  time.  With  the  customary  policy  of  the  Holy  Office,  he 
was  promoted  to  the  more  important  tribunal  of  Lima,  to  be 
elevated,  in  1643,  as  we  have  seen,  to  the  archbishopric  of  Mexico. 
He  remained,  however,  in  Cartagena,  until  the  arrival  of  his 
successor,  Agustin  de  Ugarte  y  Saravia,  in  the  middle  of  1623.1 

During  his  absence  at  the  court,  his  colleague  Salcedo  had 
become  involved  in  a  furious  quarrel  with  the  bishop,  Diego  de 
Torris  Altamirano,  by  forcibly  taking  from  his  prison  a  priest 
named  Pedro  de  Quesada,  condemned  to  degradation  and  death 
for  robbery  and  murder.  Quesada,  through  his  confessor,  in- 
formed the  tribunal  that  he  had  a  deposition  to  make;  Salcedo 
sent  a  message  informally  to  the  provisor  to  send  the  culprit, 
who  would  be  returned,  but  when  the  messenger  went  for  him, 
he  was  found  fast  in  the  stocks  and  the  key  carried  off.  The 
bishop  declared  that  he  should  not  be  delivered  without  a  written 
demand,  but  Salcedo  sent  a  party  of  familiars,  who  carried  him 
off  by  force  and  then  returned  him  within  an  hour — the  object 
being  simply  to  humiliate  the  bishop  and  demonstrate  the  superior 
authority  of  the  Inquisition.2  Salcedo  and  Altamirano  both  died 
in  1621,  but  the  new  bishop,  Francisco  de  Sotomayor,  who  arrived 
in  1622,  became  immediately  involved  in  a  serious  quarrel  with 
Manozca,  which  had  to  be  referred  to  Spain  for  settlement.8 

In  1630  the  Council  of  Indies  presented  to  Philip  IV  a  formal 
complaint  in  thirty-four  articles  against  the  tribunal  of  Cartagena, 
which  very  probably  contributed  to  the  enactment  of  the  Concor- 
dia  of  1633.4  Meanwhile  a  new  governor,  Francisco  de  Murga, 


1  Medina,  pp.  146-9,  160.  3  Ibidem,  pp.  152-3. 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Gracia  y  Justicia,  Inquisicion,  Leg.  621,  fol.  26. 
4  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  20,  fol.  59. 


QUARRELS  WITH  THE  AUTHORITIES  477 

had  resolutely  undertaken  to  abate  the  insolence  of  the  inquisi- 
tors and  had  become  involved  in  specially  bitter  quarrels  with  the 
inquisitor  Velez  de  Asas  y  Argos,  who  had  been  promoted,  in  1626, 
from  the  position  of  fiscal.  In  a  letter  of  December  12,  1632, 
the  inquisitors  describe  him  as  the  most  dangerous  man  on  earth, 
for  he  daily  framed  a  thousand  devices  to  trip  them  up  and,  if  this 
could  not  be  stopped,  there  would  be  no  living  in  the  city.  He 
was  certainly  audacious  for  one  day  he  took  from  the  executioner 
a  negro  who  was  being  scourged  through  the  streets  for  heresy. 
For  this  they  excommunicated  him,  but  when  they  sent  officials 
and  familiars  to  notify  him,  he  clapped  them  all  into  gaol  and 
held  them  there  under  heavy  guard  for  twenty-four  hours.  Then 
he  called  a  junta  in  the  house  of  the  bishop  and,  by  its  advice, 
asked  for  absolution,  which  was  administered  in  a  manner  so 
humiliating  that  the  Council  of  Indies  presented  a  formal  com- 
plaint to  the  king.  This  did  not  tend  to  harmony  and  the  quarrel 
went  on,  to  the  discomfiture  of  the  tribunal,  showing  what  a 
determined  man  could  do,  when  supported  by  the  universal  detes- 
tation in  which  the  Inquisition  was  held.  In  fact,  as  the  inquisi- 
tors complained,  in  a  letter  of  August  8,  1633,  the  mass  of  the 
people  held  them  in  mortal  hatred,  which  they  could  explain 
only  by  the  wiles  of  the  devil  seeking  to  obstruct  their  pious 
work.1 

Meanwhile  the  home  authorities  were  leisurely  engaged  in 
endeavoring  to  reconcile  the  irreconcileable.  A  consulta  of  the 
Suprema,  March  23,  1633,  suggested  measures  to  that  effect  but 
in  vain.  Philip  IV  adopted  a  more  practical  course  in  ordering 
the  Suprema  to  summon  Velez  to  Spain,  but  it  disobeyed  and, 
when  he  repeated  the  order,  it  replied,  May  3,  1635,  that  it  was 
ready  to  obey  but  had  deferred  in  expectation  of  his  replying  to 
its  consulta  of  May  26,  1634;  besides,  it  had  not  yet  received  the 
papers  containing  the  inquisitors'  side  of  the  matter.  To  this 
the  king  replied  by  curtly  commanding  immediate  compliance, 
but  it  still  dallied  and  it  was  not  until  1636  that  Ve*lez  was  com- 

1  Medina,  pp.  201-3. — Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  20,  fol.  177,  299. 


478  NEW  GRANADA 

pelled  to  sail  for  Spain.  At  the  same  time  the  Suprema  admitted 
the  fault  of  the  tribunal  by  ordering  the  inquisitors,  March  15, 
1636,  not  to  plot  and  conspire  against  Murga  nor,  after  his  retire- 
ment, against  his  deputy  and  officials.  The  sincerity  of  this  was 
soon  put  to  the  test.  Murga  had  died  before  Velez  left  Cartagena 
and,  in  April,  1636,  the  tribunal  was  delighted  to  receive  orders 
to  arrest  his  deputy,  Francisco  de  Llano  Valdes,  who  was  asserted 
to  be  the  cause  of  all  the  troubles.  The  order  was  joyfully  obeyed, 
but  to  little  effect.  In  prison  Llano  Valde*s  became  intimate  with 
Inquisitor  Cortdzar,  for  both  were  Biscayans;  a  false  certificate 
of  illness  was  procured  from  the  physician  and  he  was  given  his 
house  as  a  prison;  he  was  soon  seen  on  the  streets  again  and 
was  even  called  in  frequently  to  administer  torture,  as  the  tribu- 
nal had  no  official  skilled  in  the  art.1 

The  death  of  Murga  did  not  end  the  debate,  which  was  trans- 
ferred to  Spain,  where  Ve*lez  arrived  in  December,  1636.  It 
dragged  on  with  customary  procrastination.  The  Suprema  urged 
his  return  to  Cartagena,  declaring  that  his  service  had  been  most 
satisfactory,  and  that  he  had  been  dishonored  by  being  summoned 
to  Spain  without  cause,  which  could  only  be  repaired  by  his 
restoration.  The  Council  of  Indies  insisted  that  he  had  exposed 
Cartagena  to  destruction  and  that  he  should  be  provided  for 
with  a  post  in  Spain.  Philip  IV  sought  to  compromise  the 
matter  by  deciding  against  his  return  and  that  he  should  have 
one  of  the  best  Spanish  tribunals — it  being  the  ordinary  policy 
of  the  Inquisition  that  when  a  man  had  proved  his  unfitness  in 
one  position,  he  should  be  promoted  to  a  higher  station  in  which 
to  exercise  his  powers  of  evil.  Finally  it  was  settled  that  he  should 
have  the  great  tribunal  of  Mexico,  but  the  commander  of  the  fleet, 
Don  Carlos  de  Ibarra,  ordered  him  to  take  ship  direct  to  Honduras 
and  made  public  proclamation  that  no  one  should  receive  him 
on  board  or  carry  him  to  Cartagena,  under  pain  of  treason  and 
confiscation.  Then  the  Suprema,  September  30,  1639,  made  a 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  61,  fol.  51;  Lib.  21,  fol.  8. — Medina, 
pp.  204,  207. 


QUARRELS  WITH  THL  AUTHORITIES  479 

final  effort  to  obtain  his  restoration  to  Cartagena,  but  this  failed 
and  he  at  last  took  his  seat  in  the  Mexican  tribunal.1 

Velez  had  been  on  terms  not  much  better  with  his  colleague, 
Martin  de  Cortazar  y  Ascarate,  who  accused  him  of  endeavoring 
to  encompass  the  death  of  Llano  Valdes  in  prison  and  of  seeking 
to  rule  the  tribunal  with  a  faction  of  the  officials,  consisting  of 
the  fiscal  Juan  Ortiz,  his  son,  the  secretary  Luis  Blanco  and  the 
other  secretary,  Juan  de  Uriarte,  father-in-law  of  Blanco.  As 
for  Cortdzar  himself,  two  of  the  consultors,  Juan  de  Cuadros 
Pena  and  Rodrigo  de  Oviedo,  wrote  to  the  Suprema,  August  10, 
1635,  representing  his  utter  ignorance;  he  knew  no  Latin  and  his 
Castilian  was  so  imperfect  as  to  be  unintelligible;  he  was  proud 
and  haughty  and  his  cruelty  was  evinced  by  the  savage  tortures 
which  he  inflicted  on  the  accused.  Then,  on  November  16,  1640, 
Ortiz  was  promoted  to  the  inquisitorship  and  his  family  had  com- 
plete control.2 

They  used  their  power  for  their  own  enrichment,  dividing 
among  themselves  the  moneys  in  the  coffer  and  paying  no  debts 
unless  they  were  bribed.  That  they  should  soon  be  involved  in 
strife  with  the  municipality,  was  inevitable.  In  1641  an  excessive 
scarcity  caused  by  the  ravages  of  locusts  led  the  cabildo,  or  city 
authorities,  to  prescribe  maximum  prices  for  provisions  and  to 
order  an  examination  into  the  quantities  of  produce  in  the  several 
plantations,  so  as  to  prevent  exportation.  Ortiz  and  his  officials 
claimed  exemption  from  these  regulations;  he  ordered  the  secre- 
tary of  the  cabildo  to  furnish  him  with  its  proceedings,  that  he 
might  see  which  of  the  regidores  voted  for  them,  so  that  he  might 
imprison  them,  as  was  done  with  Don  Cristoval  de  Bermudez 
and  Don  Baltasar  de  Escovar,  on  complaint  of  the  servants  of 
the  officials,  for  distributing  provisions  equally — arbitrary  impris- 
onment without  observing  any  formalities  or  opportunity  for 
defence.  Then,  as  the  secretary  did  not  comply  with  the  demand, 
he  was  similarly  thrown  in  prison.  When  meat  was  brought  into 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  21,  fol.  82,  88,  196. 
1  Medina,  pp.  233-7. 


480  NEW  GRANADA 

the  city  for  distribution  the  servants  of  the  officials  claimed  whole 
carcasses,  which  they  cut  up  and  retailed  at  excessive  prices. 
Driven  to  extremities,  the  city  complained  to  the  king  of  the 
violence  of  the  tribunal  and  the  excesses  of  its  officials,  when 
Ortiz  again  demanded  a  copy  of  the  proceedings  of  the  cabildo, 
leading  to  further  intolerable  vexations,  which  caused  it  to  send 
the  regidor,  Nicolds  Her  as  Panto  j  a  as  procurator  to  ask  for  a 
visitador.1 

This  imprisonment  in  the  secret  prison,  we  may  remark,  was 
an  inveterate  abuse;  it  was  in  itself  the  severest  punishment,  as 
it  implied  heresy  and  inflicted  indelible  infamy  on  the  individual 
and  his  posterity.  It  was  the  subject  of  repeated  complaints 
and,  at  last,  a  consulta  of  the  Council  of  Indies,  June  14,  1646, 
led  the  king  to  order  the  Suprema  to  instruct  the  Cartagena  tri- 
bunal not  to  molest  the  people;  when  any  one  was  arrested  for 
matters  not  of  faith,  he  must  be  placed  in  a  decent  prison,  outside 
of  the  Inquisition.  The  Suprema  had  already  taken  such  action 
in  letters  of  April  28,  1645,  and  it  repeated  this  July  28,  1646. 
Yet  a  letter  from  Cartagena  of  June  10,  1649,  represented  that, 
in  spite  of  these  orders,  the  inquisitors  continued  to  throw  many 
people  into  the  secret  prison,  for  causes  not  of  faith,  till  at  length 
three  citizens  who  had  been  thus  dishonored  supplicated  the  king 
to  remedy  the  great  injuries  thus  inflicted.  The  Council  of 
Indies,  in  a  consulta  of  February  21,  1650,  represented  strongly 
to  the  king  the  disorders  arising  from  the  disregard  of  his  com- 
mands and  urged  that  positive  orders  to  obey  be  given  to  the 
inquisitors.  This  he  sent  with  his  endorsement  to  the  Suprema, 
which,  on  April  8th,  wrote  to  the  tribunal  to  observe  its  previous 
instructions — but  without  producing  permanent  effect.2 

Meanwhile  the  prayer  of  the  city  for  a  visitador  had  been 
answered  after  a  fashion,  though  not  in  consequence  of  its  suppli- 
cation. According  to  a  statement  of  the  Suprema  in  1646,  it 
had,  at  the  close  of  1642,  determined  to  send  an  inspector  to  Lima 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  61,  fol.  270. — Medina,  pp.  238-9. 
*  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  38,  fol.  122. 


VISITATION  OF  MARTIN  REAL  481 

and  Cartagena,  as  those  tribunals  had  not  been  visited  since  their 
foundation.  There  had  recently  been  great  sequestrations  and 
confiscations,  giving  rise  in  Lima  to  over  two  thousand  lawsuits, 
while  in  Cartagena  it  was  necessary  to  investigate  the  settlements 
made  with  the  claimants  and  the  net  collections  secured.  There 
were  no  charges,  it  said,  against  the  inquisitors  and  it  was  only 
the  financial  matters  that  were  concerned.  There  was  hesitation 
as  to  the  selection  of  a  visitor;  he  had  to  be  an  old  inquisitor 
and  no  one  would  accept  the  position  without  the  assurance  of  a 
good  benefice  in  the  Indies  or  of  a  place  in  the  Suprema  itself. 
To  give  him  more  authority  it  was  resolved  to  make  him  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Suprema  and  to  swear  him  in  before  his  departure. 
Unfortunately  the  choice  fell  upon  Dr.  Martin  Real,  then  serving 
in  the  tribunal  of  Toledo,  a  man  of  learning  and  imbued  with 
the  highest  conceptions  of  inquisitorial  authority,  who  had  acted 
as  visitor  in  Sicily,  where  he  earned  the  reputation  of  a  breeder 
of  troubles,  through  his  ungovernable  temper  and  headstrong 
character.  This  was  known  to  the  Suprema,  but  it  was  thought 
that  what  he  had  suffered  in  consequence  of  it  and  the  warnings 
that  would  be  given  would  render  him  cautious.  Philip  IV 
objected,  in  view  of  what  had  occurred  in  Sicily,  and  suggested 
other  names,  but  yielded  on  condition  that  he  should  not  take 
the  oath  as  councillor  until  the  day  of  his  departure.  Then  the 
Council  of  Indies  protested  against  the  appointment  as  dangerous 
to  the  peace  of  the  colonies,  but  the  Suprema  represented  that 
the  matter  had  gone  too  far  to  be  reconsidered  without  disgracing 
Real ;  that  the  opposition  came  from  those  who  desired  to  prevent 
the  visitation  and  that  it  did  not  concern  the  inquisitors  but  only 
the  confiscations.  The  king  made  no  further  objection  and  Real 
was  duly  commissioned  and  departed  early  in  1643.1 

The  result  justified  fully  the  apprehensions  of  Philip  and  the 
Council  of  Indies,  but  it  may  be  doubted  whether  the  most  even- 
tempered  visitor,  honestly  bent  on  performing  his  duty,  could 
have  averted  an  explosion.  The  object  of  the  mission  was  the 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  61,  fol.  130. 
31 


482  NEW  GRANADA 

investigation  of  the  finances;  there  can  be  little  question  that, 
as  in  the  other  tribunals,  false  reports  had  been  made  as  to  the 
results  of  the  enormous  confiscations  accruing  from  the  prose- 
cution of  the  Judaizing  New  Christians,  and  an  inspection  of  the 
accounts  was  to  be  prevented  at  all  hazards.  The  city  was  in  a 
state  of  combustion  with  the  chronic  quarrels  between  the  tri- 
bunal and  the  civil  and  military  authorities.  Real's  temper 
would  not  allow  him  to  be  neutral  and  it  was  easy  to  create  a 
situation  which  should  preclude  the  dreaded  investigation.  Such, 
at  least,  is  the  most  rational  explanation  of  the  events  as  they 
can  be  disentangled  from  the  somewhat  conflicting  accounts 
that  have  reached  us. 

Towards  the  end  of  July,  1643,  Real  arrived  in  Cartagena  and 
with  him  came  a  new  inquisitor,  Juan  Bautista  de  Villadiego,  a 
man  nearly  seventy  years  of  age,  and  a  fiscal,  Pedro  Triunfo  de 
Socaya.  Real's  first  act  was  to  forbid  Ortiz  and  Uriarte  from  en- 
trance to  the  secreto,  evidently  with  a  view  of  examinating  their 
accounts  without  interference,  at  the  same  time  handing  them 
appointments  to  equivalent  positions  in  Llerena  and  Logrono — 
the  favorite  method  used  by  the  Suprema  when  officials  had 
destroyed  their  usefulness  where  they  were.  Villadiego  however 
refused  to  let  Real  have  the  keys  of  the  money-chest,  so  the 
object  of  his  visitation  was  frustrated  and  he  revenged  himself 
by  exceeding  the  powers  of  his  commission  and  assuming  control 
of  the  tribunal.  To  obtain  the  keys  of  the  coffer  he  led  a  dis- 
orderly crowd  to  Villadiego's  house,  broke  it  open,  personally 
assaulted  him,  seized  the  furniture  and  sold  it  at  auction  to  pay 
the  fine  which  he  had  imposed  on  him.  Real  further  espoused 
the  cause  of  the  governor  and  cabildo  and  interfered  by  liber- 
ating a  secretary  whom  Villadiego  had  arrested  in  order  to  learn 
who  had  voted  against  him.  Then  Villadiego  endeavored  to 
establish  a  rival  tribunal  in  his  own  house  and  appointed  officials 
to  run  it,  a  schism  which  lasted  for  two  months,  until  Real  judici- 
ally sentenced  him  to  consider  his  house  as  a  prison.  Villadiego 
thereupon,  on  the  night  of  February  11, 1644,  with  his  own  hands, 


VISITATION  OF  MARTIN  REAL  483 

posted  notices  that  Real  was  excommunicated  and  Real  retorted 
by  arresting  him. 

He  was  replaced  by  Juan  Pereira  Castro,  who  took  possession 
as  inquisitor,  August  22,  1644,  and  lost  no  time  in  organizing  a 
faction  among  the  officials  and  the  clergy  against  Real  and  was 
concerned  in  libels  upon  him  which  were  posted  on  the  night  of 
September  3d.  For  this,  on  insufficient  evidence,  Real  arrested 
Ortiz  de  la  Masa,  an  ecclesiastic  of  high  standing,  and  proposed  to 
torture  him,  which  created  an  immense  scandal  among  both  clergy 
and  laity.  Pereira  in  vain  endeavored  to  release  him  and,  on 
January  25,  1645,  he  and  Real  exchanged  excommunications, 
resulting  in  an  interdict  under  which  the  city  lay  for  many 
months.  A  few  days  later,  on  January  28th,  Pereira,  the  fiscal 
Socaya  and  the  notary,  Tomds  de  Vega,  locked  themselves  up 
in  the  tribunal  for  fear  of  arrest,  and  there  they  remained  for 
seven  months,  solacing  their  self-inflicted  captivity  with  feasting 
and  gambling,  while  Real  could  neither  get  his  salary  nor  the 
papers  which  were  necessary  for  the  business  of  his  visitation. 
Many  of  those  whom  he  had  treated  harshly  hurried  to  Spain  and 
brought  suits  against  him  in  the  Suprema,  and  we  hear  of  Socaya 
sending  with  them  forty  bars  of  silver  to  substantiate  their  com- 
plaints. 

The  Suprema  was  not  a  little  perplexed  by  the  turn  which  affairs 
had  taken.  It  ordered  Villadiego  to  be  restored  to  his  place  in 
the  tribunal,  an  order  received  February  17,  1645,  but  it  was 
accompanied  with  a  summons  to  present  himself  at  court  within 
four  months.  This  he  disobeyed  and  recommenced  to  hold  a 
tribunal  in  his  own  house,  with  the  object,  as  Pereira  wrote  in 
February,  1646,  of  diverting  attention  from  the  scandals  of  his 
licentious  life.  To  this  Villadiego  retorted  by  accusing  Pereira 
of  defending  the  gaoler  in  his  crimes  with  female  prisoners  and  of 
holding  indecent  banquets  with  him  and  the  fiscal.  The  only 
immediate  solution  to  the  troubles  seemed  to  lie  in  the  recall  of 
Real;  he  was  ordered  home  and  left  Cartagena  at  the  end  of 
October,  1645.  As  the  time  of  his  arrival  in  Spain  approached, 


484  NEW  GRANADA 

the  Suprema  grew  uneasy  at  the  prospect  of  receiving  him  as  a 
member  and,  February  16,  1646,  it  presented  a  consulta  to  Philip 
IV  containing  a  condensed  narrative  of  his  doings  and  represent- 
ing that  his  seat  in  the  Council  was  intended,  not  as  a  reward  for 
past  services  but  as  an  incentive  to  those  he  was  to  render; 
his  visitation  had  cost  20,000  pesos  and  had  brought  no  results, 
nor  was  it  held  advisable  that  he  should  be  allowed  to  repeat 
his  performances  in  Lima.  Besides,  it  would  be  indecent  for 
him  to  sit  in  judgement  on  the  numerous  suits  brought  against 
him  in  the  Suprema  so  that,  all  things  being  considered,  it  was 
suggested  that  his  membership  should  be  suspended  until  those 
suits  were  settled — a  suggestion  to  which  the  king  cordially 
assented.1 

The  inquisitors  were  not  so  busy  quarrelling  among  themselves 
but  that  they  had  leisure  to  keep  up  dissensions  with  the  secular 
authorities.  A  bitter  struggle  with  the  governor  was  occupying 
the  court  in  1644  and  1645,  leading  the  Junta  de  Guerra  de  Indias, 
on  November  9th  of  the  latter  year,  to  urge  that  instructions  he 
sent  to  the  tribunal  not  to  excommunicate  the  governor  and 
captain-general  on  account  of  the  evils  that  would  result.2 
Then  a  consulta  of  the  Council  of  Indies,  March  7,  1647,  com- 
plained of  the  invasions  of  secular  jurisdiction,  in  violation  of  the 
Concordia  of  1610,  causing  regrettable  disturbances.  It  alluded 
especially  to  a  competencia  with  the  royal  Audiencia  of  Santa  Fe 
over  a  civil  case  of  the  familiar  Rodrigo  de  Oviedo  y  Luron,  in 
which  1500  pesos  were  deposited  with  Capitan  Francisco  Beltran 
de  Cairedo  to  await  the  adjudication  of  the  claims  of  his  creditors, 
when  the  tribunal  stepped  in  and  seized  the  money,  although  it 
had  no  jurisdiction  over  the  civil  cases  of  familiars.  The  Council 
therefore  asked  that  the  tribunal  be  ordered  to  abstain  from  civil 
cases  and  that  its  competencias  with  the  Audiencias  of  Santa  Fe, 
Panamd  and  Santo  Domingo  be  settled — an  appeal  to  which  the 


1  Medina,  pp.  239-45,  247-8,  257. — Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  61, 
fol.  130,  270. 
1  Archive  de  Simancas.,  Inquisition,  Lib.  61,  fol.  164,  175. 


VISITATION  OF  MEDINA  EICO  485 

king  returned  no  answer,  as  he  doubtless  transmitted  it  to  the 
Suprema,  where  it  probably  lay  buried.1 

As  long  as  Real  was  on  the  ground,  Villadiego  and  Pereira 
united  in  efforts  to  destroy  him,  but  as  soon  as  he  departed  they 
quarrelled  and,  in  February  1646,  Pereira  commenced  a  prosecu- 
tion against  his  colleague  for  holding  a  tribunal  in  his  own  house. 
The  only  hope  of  restoring  the  Inquisition  to  decency  and  useful- 
ness seemed  to  lie  in  another  visitation.  This  time  the  choice 
fell  upon  Pedro  de  Medina  Rico,  Inquisitor  of  Seville,  whom  we 
have  already  met  in  his  subsequent  discharge  of  similar  duties 
in  Mexico.  He  arrived  in  Cartagena,  December  11,  1648,  and 
found  everything  in  disorder.  As  he  wrote,  May  19,  1649,  the 
prisoners  were  rotting  in  the  dungeons,  some  of  whom  had  been 
lying  there  for  eight  years.  He  set  vigorously  at  work  with  the 
cases,  but  it  was  difficult  to  make  progress.  There  was  no  clock 
in  the  city ;  the  hours  were  announced  by  the  soldiers  of  the  guard 
in  the  streets  with  a  bell,  but  they  were  irregular  and  little  atten- 
tion was  paid  to  them.  The  officials  came  late  to  their  duties 
and  left  early;  Pereira  was  especially  brief  in  his  attendance  and, 
when  he  came,  thought  of  nothing  but  getting  away.  Medina 
Rico  therefore  begged  the  Suprema  to  send  out  a  fitting  person 
to  serve  as  secretary  and  also  two  inquisitors  of  learning  and 
probity;  Pereira  was  worthy  of  severe  punishment  and  ought  on 
no  account  to  be  allowed  to  remain.2 

Medina  Rico  of  course  was  at  once  involved  in  bitter  antagon- 
ism with  the  officials  whom  he  had  come  to  reform;  his  powers 
however  were  limited  and  he  was  unable  to  use  censures  or  arrest, 
which  put  him  at  a  disadvantage,  and  there  were  no  such  exhibi- 
tions of  violence  as  characterized  the  visitation  of  his  predecessor. 
The  Governor  Pedro  Zapata,  moreover,  took  sides  with  the  incum- 
bents and  wrote  to  the  Council  of  Indies  complaining  that  the  city 
had  been  kept  in  a  turmoil  for  ten  years,  attributable  to  the  delay 
of  the  visitadors  in  completing  their  visitations.  Real  had  been 
there  for  two  years  and  returned,  leaving  the  task  incomplete  and 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inq.,  Lib.  61,  fol.  251.  2  Medina,  pp.  249-50. 


486  NEW  GRANADA 

now  Medina  Rico  has  been  at  work  for  a  year,  with  no  prospect 
of  completion,  on  account  of  which  the  city  is  in  great  affliction, 
dreading  a  renewal  of  former  disturbances.  Philip  transmitted 
this  to  the  Suprema,  March  13,  1649,  ordering,  for  the  sake  of 
peace,  that  Medina  Rico  be  instructed  to  finish  as  speedily  as  pos- 
sible. To  this  the  Suprema  replied  that  the  illness  of  Pereira 
had  thrown  the  unfinished  business  of  the  tribunal  on  Medina 
Rico,  but  that  orders  had  already  been  despatched  to  him  to 
complete  his  task  without  loss  of  time.  Zapata  continued  his 
complaints  and  the  Marquis  of  Miranda  de  Auta,  President  of 
the  Audiencia  of  Santa  Fe,  joined  in  condemning  his  arbitrary 
acts;  in  civil  cases  he  had  arrested  the  procurators  of  pleaders 
and  he  had  issued  letters  to  the  judges  of  the  Audiencia  threat- 
ening that  in  three  days  they  would  be  posted  as  excommunicates.1 
Medina  Rico's  task  was  difficult  for  the  abuses  of  the  tribu- 
nal were  so  inveterate  that  the  sharpest  measures  were  necessary. 
Real's  report,  based  on  231  witnesses,  brought  sixty-eight  charges 
against  Villadiego  and  a  hundred  and  thirteen  against  Pereira, 
but  his  hurried  departure  had  prevented  his  submitting  it  to  the 
accused  for  their  defence  and  it  therefore  could  not  be  acted  upon. 
Fresh  evidence  was  naturally  hard  to  obtain.  The  people  knew 
the  power  of  Pereira  and  Uriarte  and  that  they  were  favored  by 
the  governor  and  the  Bishop  of  Santa  Marta;  they  had  seen  the 
failure  of  Real's  visitation  and  anticipated  the  same  result  from 
the  present  one,  when  vengeance  would  follow  on  all  who  deposed 
against  them.  Medina  Rico  was  therefore  obliged  to  proceed 
cautiously.  He  states  that  he  had  to  take  precautions  against 
attempts  on  his  life  by  Uriarte  and  that  such  fears  were  not 
groundless  for  there  was  evidence  in  his  hands  that  the  former 
notary,  Luis  Blanco  del  Salcedo,  was  poisoned  by  his  wife  and  the 
Inquisitor  Juan  Ortiz,  then  receiver,  who  subsequently  married 
her;  Inquisitor  Cortdzar  was  poisoned  by  Ortiz  and  Uriarte, 
who  intercepted  his  letters  accusing  them  to  the  Suprema. 
Rodrigo  de  Oviedo  was  killed  by  order  of  Uriarte,  whose  accom- 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  38,  fol.  31;  Lib.  61,  fol.  251. 


VISITATION  OF  MEDINA  RICO  487 

plice  he  had  been.  There  was,  he  said,  every  facility  for  such 
crimes  in  this  land  filled  with  evil  negroes ;  it  was  held  for  certain 
that  in  this  way  perished  Bishop  Cristobal  de  Lazarraga  and  all 
his  family;  to  poison  was  attributable  the  death  of  Juan  de 
Lorrigui,  acting  fiscal,  and  also  that  of  the  governor  who  was  in 
office  at  the  time  of  his  arrival.1 

In  spite  of  these  apprehensions  he  gathered  evidence,  confirma- 
tory of  Real's  charges  and  of  subsequent  misdeeds  and,  under 
pressing  orders  to  betake  himself  to  Mexico,  towards  the  summer 
of  1650  he  drew  up  accusations  against  the  inquisitors  and  the 
chief  officials.  Those  against  Pereira  were  virtually  the  same  as 
Martin  Real's.  Villadiego  he  accused  of  friendship  with  Jews 
who  had  been  penanced,  of  receiving  gifts  and  loans  from  them 
and  using  them  as  agents  to  sell  goods  for  him;  he  was  con- 
tinually exacting  gifts  and  abused  those  who  refused  them  and 
there  was  also  his  general  licentiousness  with  women.  The  fiscal, 
Bernardo  de  Eyzaguirre,  was  charged  with  embezzling  the  money 
of  the  prisoners.  Secretary  Uriarte  he  accused  of  selling  his 
influence  to  the  kindred  of  those  on  trial,  giving  them  information 
and  advice  and  arranging  to  bribe  the  consultors  and  episcopal 
Ordinary;  of  encompassing  the  death  of  his  accomplice  Rodrigo 
de  Oviedo,  who  threatened  to  denounce  him;  of  falsifying  the 
accounts  and  robbing  the  tribunal  to  the  amount  of  200,000  pesos ; 
after  the  death  of  Cortazar,  he  had  a  secret  door  made  by  which 
he  entered  the  secreto  to  commit  these  thefts  and  he  embezzled 
the  property  of  the  accused  by  bribing  those  in  charge  of  it,  in 
addition  to  all  which  his  life  was  scandalously  incontinent.  Against 
Juan  Ortiz  he  reproduced  the  sixty  general  charges  made  by  Real 
and  added  seventy-nine  special  ones  of  the  same  character — 
bribery,  receiving  presents,  appropriating  the  property  of  prison- 
ers, falsified  accounts,  subornation  and  violence — when  a  butcher 
did  not  give  him  the  best  meat,  he  summoned  him  to  the  tribunal 
and  struck  him  a  blow  on  the  head  that  left  him  senseless.2 

In  July,  1650,  there  arrived  a  new  fiscal,  Juan  de  Mesa,  who  was 

1  Medina,  pp.  260-1,  2  Ibidem,  pp.  250-59, 


488  NEW  GRANADA 

to  be  associated  with  Medina  Rico,  in  case  Uriarte  recused  him, 
as  in  fact  he  did.  Pereira  had  become  so  apprehensive  as  to 
the  results  of  the  visitation  that  Mesa,  on  August  4th,  in  handing 
him  the  charges,  told  him  that  they  would  kill  him.  It  so  turned 
out.  Pereira  took  them  and  pondered  over  them  until  midnight. 
In  the  morning  he  sent  for  a  physician  who  at  once  told  him  that 
his  case  was  hopeless  and,  on  the  13th,  he  was  dead.  Uriarte  fol- 
lowed him  to  the  grave,  on  February  1,  1651,  and  Medina  Rico's 
task  was  accomplished.  He  was  under  orders  to  start  for  Mexico, 
but  was  detained  by  prolonged  illness  and  did  not  leave  Carta- 
gena until  June  8,  1654.1 

The  perennial  quarrels  with  the  authorities  continued,  of  which 
the  Council  of  Indies  complained  in  a  consulta  to  Philip  IV,  May 
14,  1652.2  Matters  were  not  improved  when,  about  this  time, 
there  came  a  new  inquisitor,  Diego  del  Corro  Carrascal,  followed 
shortly  by  Pedro  de  Salas  y  Pedroso  as  fiscal,  who  was  soon  pro- 
moted to  the  inquisitorship.  He  was  so  completely  dominated 
by  his  senior  that  the  Suprema  took  him  to  task,  after  which  he 
manifested  his  independence  by  perpetual  discordias,  which  left 
the  accused  perishing  in  the  prison,  awaiting  the  slow  decisions  in 
Spain.  Corro  Carrascal  moreover  was  rebuked  by  the  Suprema 
for  cruelty  and  for  speculating  on  the  operations  of  the  tribunal 
by  having  the  confiscations  bought  in  for  him  at  the  auctions 
at  low  prices.  His  dissolute  life  was  so  notorious  that  Governor 
Zapata  said  that  his  going  out  at  night  in  disguise  and  having 
amours  with  married  women  passed  into  a  proverb.3  The  dis- 
sension between  the  inquisitors  grew  bitterer  until,  in  1658,  they 
had  a  common  object  of  dislike  in  a  new  fiscal,  Guerra  de  Latrds, 
a  man  who  had  had  a  somewhat  distinguished  career  as  doctor 
of  laws,  professor  and  author,  and  who  had  served  in  various 
important  positions.  The  Suprema  had  often  reproved  the  tri- 
bunal for  its  disregard  of  established  procedure  and  Guerra  sought 

1  Medina,  pp.  261-3. 

*  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  61,  fol.  251. 

•  Medina,  pp.  263-5. 


DEGRADATION  OF  THE  TRIBUNAL  489 

to  reduce  it  to  order,  bringing  upon  himself  the  hostility  of 
the  inquisitors,  who  characterized  his  representations  as  childish. 
Early  in  1660  he  had  a  fall  from  his  mule  and  broke  his  arm,  which 
incapacitated  him  from  writing;  the  inquisitors  refused  to  allow 
him  to  employ  an  assistant  and  the  business  of  the  tribunal  was 
paralyzed.  In  1665  Corro  Carrascal  was  made  President  of  New 
Granada,  Salas  fell  sick  and  was  absent  for  weeks  at  a  time  and, 
in  this  atrophy,  the  Inquisition  ceased  to  inspire  awe  or  even 
respect.  The  opportunity  was  propitious  for  the  secular  power  to 
reassert  itself,  and  the  Governor,  Benito  de  Figueroa  y  Barrantes, 
availed  himself  of  it.  August  23,  1666,  meeting  the  executioner 
who  was  scourging  two  penitents  through  the  accustomed  streets, 
he  sent  three  of  his  soldiers  to  release  them.  The  tribunal  prose- 
cuted the  soldiers  and,  on  the  29th,  had  two  of  them  arrested 
by  its  secretary,  Gonzalo  de  Carvajal,  who,  in  the  process,  fired 
a  shot  and  had  a  struggle  with  one  of  the  soldiers.  Figueroa 
thereupon  surrounded  the  Inquisition  with  guards  to  starve  out 
the  inmates;  Guerra  sought  an  interview  and  agreed  to  sur- 
render the  prisoners  but,  four  days  later,  the  governor  arrested 
Carvajal,  threw  him  fettered  into  the  public  prison,  sequestrating 
his  property  and  taking  his  confession  in  the  torture-chamber. 
Guerra  and  Salas  proceeded  to  prosecute  the  governor  and  pro- 
claimed a  cessatio  a  divinis.  The  bishop  intervened  and  Carvajal 
was  relieved  of  his  chains,  but  remained  in  prison.  The  affair  com- 
pletely discredited  the  Inquisition;  as  the  new  fiscal,  Montoyo  y 
Angulo,  reported,  April  16,  1669,  there  was  no  petty  official  who 
did  not  think  himself  able  to  give  orders  to  those  of  the  tribunal.1 

It  had  not,  however,  as  yet  reached  the  depth  of  its  degradation. 
Salas  had  died,  December  28,  1667;  Guerra  had  been  promoted 
some  months  earlier  to  the  inquisitorship  and  he  too  died  March 
21,  1671,  leaving  the  fiscal  Luis  de  Bruna  Rico  alone.  Then, 
August  19, 1673,  there  came  a  new  inquisitor,  Juan  Gomez  de  Mier, 
followed,  in  1674,  by  a  colleague,  Alvaro  Bernardo  de  Quir6s,  and 
a  new  fiscal,  Jose*  de  Padilla,  Bruna  Rico  having  been  transferred 

1  Medina,  pp.  280-88. 


490  NEW  GRANADA 

to  Lima.  The  colleagues  speedily  quarrelled  and  Padilla  joined 
Mier  to  oppose  Quiros.  The  latter,  on  his  arrival,  had  observed 
the  abuses  current  in  the  importation  of  merchandise  and  slaves 
and  wrote  on  the  subject  to  the  Council  of  Indies.  The  governor, 
who  was  compromised,  succeeded  in  winning  him  over,  so  that 
he  spent  most  of  his  time  in  the  governor's  house  card-playing  and 
wrote  to  the  Council,  withdrawing  his  charges.  It  was  too  late, 
however,  for  Juan  de  Mier  y  Salinas,  a  judge  at  Santa  Fe,  was 
commissioned  to  investigate  and  came  to  Cartagena,  where  he 
lodged  in  the  house  of  his  uncle,  the  Inquisitor  Mier.  The  two 
commenced  making  arrests  and  the  inculpated  took  asylum  in 
the  churches.  Among  them  was  a  friend  of  Quiros,  who  exerted 
himself  in  vain  to  protect  him,  and  in  failing  to  do  so  broke 
definitely  with  his  colleague.  He  allied  himself  closely  with  the 
governor,  for  whom  he  drew  up  edicts,  notably  one  in  1678  which, 
under  pretext  of  a  threatened  attack  by  the  French,  discharged 
all  the  prisoners  and  put  an  end  to  the  prosecutions.  He  is 
described  as  wandering  around  at  all  hours  of  the  day  and  night, 
mingling  with  every  body,  even  dancing  in  public  and  universally 
despised.  Mier's  association  with  his  nephew  the  judge  brought 
upon  him  a  shower  of  denunciations;  he  held  relations  with  the 
English  of  Jamaica,  who  sent  him  negroes;  these  he  entered  at 
night  as  prisoners  of  the  Inquisition,  guarded  by  the  alguazil 
mayor,  through  whom,  moreover,  he  sold  positions — commission- 
erships  and  the  like — to  all  who  would  pay  for  them.  The  fiscal 
Padilla  shut  himself  up  in  his  house  and  would  see  no  one.  The 
master  spirit  of  the  tribunal  was  the  secretary,  Miguel  de  Echarri, 
to  whom  were  attributed  all  the  evil  deeds  of  Mier.  Every  one 
went  to  him  for  the  distribution  of  favors ;  his  anteroom  was  like 
that  of  a  viceroy  and  presents  were  showered  upon  him;  he  was 
assiduous  in  the  gambling-houses  and,  as  Fray  Juan  Cabeza 
de  Vaca  had  written,  January  30,  1670,  "  while  he  is  in  this  city 
there  will  neither  be  peace  in  the  tribunal  nor  will  the  people  be 
without  a  demon  to  disturb  everybody  and  keep  them  in  open  war."1 

1  Medina,  pp.  297-301. 


QUARREL  WITH  BISHOP  BENAVIDES  491 

This  state  of  affairs  continued  for  years.  Mier  was  transferred 
to  Mexico  and  Quiros  to  Lima  in  December,  1681,  leaving  as  sole 
inquisitor  Padilla,  who  died  March  31,  1682,  appointing  as  suc- 
cessor ad  interim  the  Archdeacon  Andres  de  Torres.  Matters 
took  a  new  aspect  with  the  arrival,  March  27,  1683,  of  a  new 
inquisitor,  Francisco  Valera,  who  had  filled  important  offices  in 
Lima.  He  dismissed  Torres  and  made  Echarri  fiscal;  he  gave 
five  hours  a  day,  in  the  tribunal,  to  cases  of  faith  and  three  hours 
in  his  house  to  affairs  of  property.  He  pushed  the  pending  trials 
to  conclusion  and  in  five  months,  August  29th,  he  celebrated  an 
auto  de  fe.1  Under  such  a  man  the  tribunal  was  speedily  lifted 
from  its  degradation,  but  he  had  the  defects  of  his  qualities,  and 
his  imperious  temper  speedily  involved  him  in  a  struggle  of  which 
the  scandal  was  greater  than  that  of  any  previous  one.2 

In  1681,  two  years  before  Valera's  arrival,  there  had  come  to 
Cartagena  a  new  bishop,  Manuel  de  Benavides  y  Piedrola,  who 
seems  to  have  been  impulsive  and  inconsiderate.  Almost  at 
once  he  fell  into  trouble  by  listening  to  the  prayer  of  the  nuns  of 
Santa  Clara,  who  desired  to  transfer  their  obedience  from  the 
Franciscans  to  the  episcopal  provisor,  leading  to  a  contest  which 
was  envenomed  by  the  bishop's  endeavor  to  restrain  the  disorderly 
intercourse  between  friars  and  nuns.  Castillo  de  la  Concha,  the 
President  of  New  Granada,  ranged  himself  against  the  bishop, 
on  whom  a  sentence  of  banishment  was  pronounced,  to  which  he 
replied  by  casting  an  interdict  on  the  city  and  leaving  it.  The 
populace  took  sides  with  a  vehemence  which  led  to  frequent 
riots  and  almost  to  civil  war,  during  which  the  nuns  sustained  a 
siege  of  six  months. 

Valera,  on  seeing  the  condition  of  affairs,  endeavored  to  make 
peace  and  sought  the  bishop  in  his  retreat,  but  was  unsuccessful 
and  his  disappointment  was  aggravated  by  the  bishop's  refusal 

1  Medina,  pp.  302-5. 

2  Of  this  quarrel  we  have  two  accounts.     That  of  Sr.  Medina  (pp.  311-24), 
drawn  from  the  records  of  the  Inquisition,  is  naturally  favorable  to  Valera. 
The  other  side  is  given  by  Groot  (I,  286-306;  II,  584)  from  a  MS.  relation.     I 
have  endeavored  to  elicit  the  truth  from  the  conflicting  statements. 


492  NEW  GRANADA 

to  allow  him  to  celebrate  mass  in  his  own  house  during  the  inter- 
dict. On  his  return  to  Cartagena  he  boldly  celebrated  mass, 
which  greatly  encouraged  the  anti-episcopal  faction.  Matters 
however  seemed  to  be  settling  down,  when,  by  order  of  President 
Castillo,  Diego  de  Banos,  Bishop  of  Santa  Marta,  came  to  Carta- 
gena and  removed  the  interdict.  The  two  bishops  exchanged 
excommunications  and  the  quarrel  became  fiercer  and  more  intri- 
cate than  ever.  Castillo  ordered  Benavides  to  leave  the  diocese, 
but  he  refused  and  excommunicated  the  governor  and  all  the 
authorities;  in  fact,  his  enemies  said  that  he  had  a  mania  for  such 
censures  and  once  excommunicated  an  object  which  he  saw 
through  the  blinds  of  a  balcony,  without  knowing  whether  it 
was  a  bag  of  cocoa  or  a  sack  of  wool. 

Valera  was  not  long  in  being  involved  in  the  conflict.  The 
authorities  had  armed  the  citizens  and  broke  by  force  into  the 
cathedral,  seizing  three  ecclesiastics,  whom  the  governor  threw 
into  the  fort  of  Bocachica;  one  of  them,  Baltasar  de  la  Fuente, 
was  a  commissioner  of  the  tribunal  and  claimed  the  fuero,  but 
Valera  refused  to  come  to  his  assistance.  When,  however,  the 
governor  ordered  Benavides  to  withdraw  the  censures,  the  latter 
excommunicated  Geronimo  Isabal,  the  advocate  who  signed  the 
letter,  and  it  chanced  that  he  was  also  acting  advocate  of  prisoners 
in  the  tribunal,  though  without  a  commission,  and  Valera  sprang 
to  his  assistance  and  demanded  the  papers.  Benavides  retorted 
with  an  edict  declaring  that  Isabal  was  not  entitled  to  the  fuero 
for  defect  of  title,  that  Valera  had  incurred  censures  for  not  pro- 
tecting la  Fuente  and  that  he,  as  episcopal  inquisitor,  would 
supply  any  deficiencies  in  the  tribunal.  One  account  states  that 
as  Valera  kept  himself  housed,  the  bishop  went  there  personally 
and  affixed  the  edict  to  his  door;  another  asserts  that  he  led  a 
mob  of  negroes  and  mulattos  to  seize  the  inquisitor,  who  barely 
escaped  by  a  back  door  and  took  refuge  in  the  tribunal. 

The  edict  was  printed  and  posted  throughout  the  town,  when 
the  alguazil  mayor  of  the  Inquisition  tore  it  down  and  arrested 
the  ecclesiastics  who  were  concerned  in  it.  Benavides  went  to 


QUARREL  WITH  BISHOP  BENAVIDES  493 

the  tribunal  to  rescue  them  and  was  contumeliously  refused 
admittance;  the  governor  came  and  a  scene  ensued,  the  accounts 
of  which  are  irreconcileable,  but  which  served  still  further  to 
scandalize  the  people  and  inflame  the  passions  of  both  sides.  The 
unlucky  clerics,  after  two  years  of  prison,  were  fined  and  exiled. 
Benavides  meanwhile  had  the  cathedral  bells  tolled  for  an  inter- 
dict, when  all  the  other  bells  in  the  city  were  rung  to  drown  them — 
a  brazen  warfare  to  which  the  people  had  become  accustomed. 
Then  he  ordered  a  cessatio  a  divinis,  but  the  convents  refused  to 
observe  it;  the  Bishop  of  Santa  Marta  pronounced  it  null  and 
Valera  posted  a  declaration  that  he  raised  it.  The  Audiencia 
of  Santa  Fe  had  ordered  the  expulsion  of  Benavides  and  now  it 
fined  him  4000  pesos  for  delay  in  executing  the  decree.  The 
cathedral  was  surrounded  with  guards;  the  chapter  fortified  it, 
but  the  Bishop  of  Santa  Marta  had  the  doors  broken  open  and 
ordered  the  chapter  to  declare  the  see  vacant.  On  their  refusal, 
the  provisor,  treasurer  and  maestre-escuela  were  arrested  and  the 
cathedral  was  handed  over  to  priests  of  his  faction.  A  certain 
Don  Gomez  de  Atienza  declared  that  he  wished  Benavides  had 
come  forward  to  resist  this  desecration,  for  he  would  have  finished 
him.  The  vengeance  of  heaven  was  not  long  delayed,  for  that 
night  a  tempest  of  unexampled  violence  burst  over  Cartagena; 
the  lightning  sought  out  Atienza  in  the  midst  of  his  family  and 
slew  him,  while  another  bolt  struck  his  farm  in  the  country, 
burnt  his  granaries  and  killed  his  mules.  He  was  buried  with 
much  pomp  by  the  Bishop  of  Santa  Marta  and  his  dead  mules 
were  hidden,  to  keep  the  people  in  ignorance. 

A  new  governor,  Juan  Martinez  Pando,  on  his  arrival  was 
ordered  by  the  Audiencia  to  remove  Benavides,  but  it  was  impos- 
sible to  ship  him  away,  for  the  buccaneers  commanded  the  sea. 
He  was  confined  in  his  house  under  strict  guard  and  his  tem- 
poralities were  seized.  The  clergy  and  people  who  were  faithful 
to  him  were  arrested,  banished  and  their  properties  confiscated. 
The  nuns  of  Santa  Clara  refused  to  recognize  the  confessors  ap- 
pointed for  them,  when  the  convent  was  broken  open  and  in  spite 


494  NEW  OR  AN  AD  A 

of  their  resistance  they  were  beaten  and  confined  on  bread  and 
water,  while  some  of  them  were  put  in  irons.  The  Archbishop 
of  Santa  Fe  had  ordered  the  Bishop  of  Santa  Marta  to  retire  and 
leave  Benavides  in  possession,  but  the  mandate  was  taken  from 
the  messenger,  was  pronounced  to  be  forged,  and  prosecutions 
were  brought  against  all  who  professed  obedience  to  it. 

Matters  took  a  sudden  turn  when  there  came  a  royal  ce*dula 
of  May  16,  1683,  addressed  to  Valera  ordering  him  to  replace 
Benavides  in  his  see,  which  he  accordingly  did  with  extraordinary 
pomp.  That  he  was  master  of  the  situation  was  generally  recog- 
nized and  peace  for  a  time  was  restored,  although  he  refused  the 
bishop's  demand  for  the  return  of  the  clergy  and  domestics  whom 
he  had  exiled.  Then  Benavides'  position  was  further  strengthened 
by  a  papal  brief  of  November  3, 1683,  based  wholly  on  the  adverse 
representations  of  the  Audiencia,  ordering  the  nuns  of  Santa 
Clara  to  be  remitted  to  his  care.  Thus  the  original  cause  of  quar- 
rel was  settled  and  the  troubles  which  followed  were  a  simple 
trial  of  strength  between  the  episcopacy  and  the  Inquisition. 

Passions  had  not  yet  exhausted  themselves  and  the  struggle 
for  supremacy  had  not  been  decided.  A  new  element  of  discord 
came  with  the  arrival  in  November,  1684,  of  another  inquisitor, 
Juan  Ortiz  de  Zdrate,  who  regarded  Valera  as  having  been  timid 
and  irresolute  in  the  quarrel  and  boasted  of  his  own  unyielding 
firmness.  Causes  of  dissension  were  not  lacking  and  open  war 
broke  out  when  Benavides  removed,  perhaps  with  unnecessary 
violence,  seats  which  the  inquisitors  had  placed  in  the  church, 
giving  as  a  reason  the  "  tertulia"  or  talkative  crowd  thus  attracted. 
Thereupon  they  excommunicated  the  bishop  and  ordered  his 
name  to  be  omitted  from  the  mass,  to  enforce  which  they  excom- 
municated, fined  and  banished  the  dean  and  the  Prior  of  San 
Agustin  for  including  it.  The  bishop  had  torn  down  the  edicts 
of  his  excommunication,  had  ostentatiously  celebrated  mass  and 
had  ordered  the  arrest  of  the  clergy  who  would  not  assist  him, 
which  led  the  tribunal  to  order  him  to  keep  his  house  as  a  prison, 
an  order  enforced  by  obtaining  from  the  governor  a  guard  which 


QUARREL  WITH  BISHOP  BENAVIDES  495 

rendered  him  practically  a  prisoner.  During  this  turmoil  it  is 
easy  to  imagine  the  condition  of  the  community,  terrorized  by 
the  Inquisition.  The  majority  of  the  people,  we  are  told,  favored 
the  bishop,  but  were  afraid  of  the  absolute  power  exercised  by 
the  tribunal,  with  the  support  of  the  governor.  The  better  part 
of  the  clergy  saved  themselves  by  flight  and  there  was  general 
demoralization.  To  render  their  victory  complete  the  inquisitors 
assembled  the  chapter  in  order  to  have  the  see  declared  vacant. 
All  but  two  voted  in  the  negative  and  left  the  room,  when  the 
remaining  two  declared  the  vacancy  and  elected  provisors  to 
govern  the  diocese. 

Then  three  vessels  arrived  from  Spain  which  it  was  hoped 
would  bring  despatches  putting  an  end  to  the  troubles.  Nothing 
was  given  out  as  to  their  nature,  but  it  was  observed  that  each 
night  the  guard  at  the  bishop's  palace  was  reduced  until  it  was 
entirely  withdrawn  and  Benavides  was  released  after  a  confine- 
ment that  had  lasted  from  April  13  to  August  22,  1687.  At 
the  same  time  there  arrived  Gomez  Sudrez  de  Figueroa  as  inquisi- 
tor to  replace  Valera,  who  had  been  transferred  to  Lima  early 
in  1685  but  who  had  awaited  the  arrival  of  his  successor;  he 
sailed  September  2, 1687,  reaching  Panama  on  the  23d  and  Lima 
in  June,  1688. 

Suarez  at  first  seemed  inclined  to  deprecate  the  excesses  of  his 
predecessor,  but  the  traditions  and  interest  of  the  Inquisition 
were  too  strong  and  he  soon  yielded  to  them.  The  tribunal  still 
held  the  bishop  to  be  excommunicated.  The  news  of  the  terrible 
earthquake  of  Lima,  March  9,  1687,  improved  by  the  preachers, 
caused  a  wave  of  religious  fervor  in  which  many  persons  aban- 
doned their  scandalous  lives  and  applied  to  Benavides  for  licences 
to  marry  but,  when  the  banns  were  published,  the  inquisitors 
excommunicated  the  officiating  priests.  They  also  gave  notice 
that  all  who  communicated  with  the  bishop  must  seek  absolution 
at  their  hands — an  absolution  which  they  ostentatiously  adminis- 
tered. Seeing  them  thus  determined  to  carry  on  war  to  the  knife, 
he  resolved  to  publish  a  papal  brief  of  January  15,  1687,  which  he 


496  NEW  GRANADA 

had  received.  This  treated  the  matter  as  exclusively  a  quarrel 
between  him  and  Valera;  it  recognized  fully  the  justice  of  his  side 
and  stated  that  the  nuncio  at  Madrid  had  been  ordered  to  pre- 
vail with  the  king  that  all  his  rights  should  be  restored  to  him 
and  that  he  should  have  public  satisfaction  for  injuries  endured. 
Although  this  brief  had  passed  the  Royal  Council,  when  he  applied 
to  the  civil  authorities  for  aid  in  its  publication  this  was  refused 
and  when  he  circulated  copies  the  inquisitors  stigmatized  it  as 
a  forgery.  They  filled  their  prison  with  the  bishop's  supporters 
and  they  garrotted  in  the  plaza  a  Franciscan  named  Francisco 
Ramirez,  without  observing  any  formalities  or  even  degrading 
him  from  holy  orders — a  tragedy  in  which  the  governor,  Fran- 
cisco de  Castro,  acted  the  part  of  executioner. 

A  new  governor,  Don  Martin  de  Ceballos  y  la  Cerda,  brought 
with  him  a  royal  ce*dula,  ordering  the  restitution  of  the  bishop 
to  his  full  rights  and  jurisdiction.  This  was  received  with  re- 
joicings, which  showed  how  few  had  been  really  opposed  to  him, 
although  terrorism  had  forced  men  to  dissemble.  One  article 
of  the  ce*dula,  however,  commanding  the  restitution  of  all  fines 
and  confiscated  property,  was  not  obeyed,  because  the  judge 
commissioned  to  enforce  it  belonged  to  the  inquisitorial  fac- 
tion and  had  the  support  of  Ceballos,  with  whom  the  bishop 
had  speedily  quarrelled.  This  encouraged  the  tribunal  to  a  re- 
newal of  molestation.  When  the  bishop  ordered  the  prosecution 
of  Doctor  Francisco  Javier  de  Cardenas,  for  abuses  committed 
in  a  visitation,  the  inquisitors  threatened  the  provisor  that,  if  he 
did  not  release  Cardenas,  he  should  be  imprisoned  as  the  bishop 
had  been.  During  the  troubles  the  tribunal  had  been  conducted 
without  the  necessary  concurrence  of  an  episcopal  Ordinary. 
To  remedy  this,  Benavides  appointed  Don  Jos£  Pedro  Medrano 
to  act,  but  the  inquisitors  took  away  his  commission  and  refused 
to  allow  him  to  serve.  Seeing  that  the  contest  was  endless,  the 
bishop  resolved  to  present  himself  at  the  court  and  embarked 
in  an  English  vessel  for  London,  but  hearing  in  Jamaica  of  the 
expulsion  of  James  II,  he  returned  to  Cartagena  to  await  the 


DISGRACE  OF  INQUISITOR  VALERA  497 

arrival  of  the  Spanish  galleons.  When  they  came,  they  brought 
a  despatch  calling  him  to  Madrid  and  he  accompanied  them  on 
their  return. 

At  this  point  the  narrative  in  both  Groot  and  Medina  fails 
us  and  we  know  nothing  of  his  reception  at  court,  except  that  it 
was  not  wholly  to  his  satisfaction.  We  learn  from  a  consulta 
of  the  Council  of  Indies,  in  1696,  that  Innocent  XI  had  rendered 
a  decision  invalidating  the  excommunications  uttered  by  the 
inquisitors  and  affirming  those  proclaimed  by  the  bishop  and 
that  all  comprised  under  the  latter  must  obtain  absolution.  To 
do  this  would  be  so  unexampled  a  humiliation  that  the  Suprema 
had  not  enforced  it,  and  Benavides  had,  without  asking  the  royal 
permission,  gone  to  Rome  to  accomplish  its  execution.  This 
placed  him  in  antagonism  with  all  Spanish  traditions  and,  in  1695, 
the  ambassador  was  endeavoring  to  obtain  papal  authority  to 
carry  him  back  to  Spain,  but  apparently  without  success,  for  in 
1696  he  was  still  there.  The  indomitable  old  man  died  in  Cddiz, 
but  in  what  year  is  not  known  and  the  see  remained  vacant  until 
1713.1 

However  the  Suprema  may  have  interposed  to  prevent  the 
humiliation  of  the  inquisitors,  it  set  its  seal  of  disapprobation 
on  Valera.  His  transfer  to  Lima  indicates  that  it  considered, 
early  in  the  quarrel,  that  his  usefulness  in  Cartagena  was  ended. 
His  action  during  the  interval  between  1685  and  1688  evidently 
confirmed  the  unfavorable  impression  and,  as  we  have  seen,  he 
was  met,  on  his  arrival  at  Lima,  with  orders  from  the  Suprema 
to  return  to  Spain — orders  which  he  evaded — and  in  1691  the 
Viceroy  Moncada  was  instructed  by  the  king  to  ship  him  home. 
As  this  was  merely  a  royal  command,  it  received  no  attention, 
and  he  continued  to  exercise  his  functions;  apparently  he  had 
profited  by  experience  for  we  hear  of  no  controversies  with  either 
the  spiritual  or  temporal  power.  With  the  advent  of  the  Bourbon 
dynasty,  however,  there  came  a  determination  to  curb  inquisi- 
torial exuberance  and  his  Cartagena  performances  were  not  for- 

1  MSS.  of  Library  of  Univ.  of  Halle,  Yc,  17.— Medina,  p.  324. 
32 


498  NEW  GRANADA 

gotten.  In  1703  there  came  orders  from  both  the  king  and 
inquisitor-general  to  jubilate  him  on  half  his  salary,  the  other 
half  being  applied  to  the  Church  of  Cartagena,  in  consideration 
of  the  controversy  which  he  had  with  it,  thus  condemning  him  to 
make  to  it  such  reparation  as  he  could.  The  sentence  came  too 
late,  however,  as  he  had  died  on  August  2,  1702.1 

Governor  Ceballos  had  no  reason  to  congratulate  himself  on 
siding  with  the  tribunal  against  Bishop  Benavides.  Its  excesses 
had  convinced  the  court  that  some  thorough  change  was  necessary 
if  peace  and  harmony  were  to  be  restored  in  the  colony  and  a 
Junta  of  two  members  each,  of  the  Suprema  and  of  the  Council  of 
Indies,  was  ordered  to  carry  it  into  effect,  but  these  intentions 
were  balked  by  the  members  of  the  Suprema  never  meeting  their 
colleagues.2  Nothing  was  done  and  the  absence  of  the  bishop 
left  the  tribunal  in  absolute  command  of  the  city.  How  des- 
potically it  exercised  its  authority  is  shown  in  a  plaintive  despatch 
of  Governor  Ceballos,  January,  1693,  reciting  how  the  butcher 
of  the  public  shambles  having  refused  to  give  the  preference  to 
a  negro  of  Inquisitor  Sudrez,  the  latter  sent  the  gaoler  of  the  secret 
prison  to  bring  the  butcher  bound  to  the  prison  or,  if  he  could 
not  be  found,  then  one  of  the  regidores  of  the  city  in  his  place. 
The  butcher  was  found  and  thrown  into  the  prison,  where  he  was 
still  lying.  The  governor  says  that  he  was  afraid  to  take  the 
proper  steps  and  contented  himself  with  addressing  a  civil  request 
to  Sudrez,  which  was  disregarded.  He  found  it  impossible  to 
get  legal  evidence  as  to  the  affair,  for  witnesses  were  in  such  terror 
that  they  would  make  no  formal  depositions.  On  January  13th, 
after  drawing  up  a  despatch  on  the  subject,  he  went  to  his  resi- 
dence, whither  came  Secretary  Luna  of  the  tribunal,  accom- 
panied by  a  mob  of  followers  and,  with  much  disturbance,  required 
him  under  threat  of  major  excommunication  and  other  censures 
to  sign  letters  declaring  that  the  case  belonged  to  the  jurisdiction 


1  Cuaderno  de  Cumplimientos,  fol.  62  (MSS.  of  White  Library,  Cornell  Univer- 
sity). 
1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  60,  fol.  352. 


DECADENCE  OF  THE  TRIBUNAL  499 

of  the  Inquisition  and  that  he  abandoned  it ;  also  that  all  references 
to  the  matter  be  erased  from  the  books  of  the  municipality  and 
all  the  papers  be  delivered  to  the  tribunal.  In  this  strait  he  con- 
sulted with  Don  Francisco  Gorrechategui,  President  of  the  Royal 
Audiencia  of  Santa  Fe,  and  Don  Fernando  de  la  Riva  Aguero, 
Judge  of  the  Audiencia  of  Panama",  but  they  could  render  him 
no  assistance;  he  was  helpless  and,  for  the  sake  of  peace,  he 
submitted  to  the  demands  of  the  Inquisition.1  When  such  was 
the  condition  to  which  the  tribunal  had  reduced  the  civil  and 
military  power  in  Cartagena,  we  need  no  further  explanation  of 
the  ease  with  which  the  French  adventurers  captured  it  in  1697. 
That  catastrophe,  as  we  have  seen,  was  the  turning-point  in 
the  history  of  the  tribunal,  which  thenceforth  rapidly  declined. 
In  1705,  Pablo  de  Ozaeta  took  possession  as  fiscal  and  found 
himself  alone,  in  consequence  of  the  severe  illness  of  Inquisitor 
Lazaeta,  until  the  arrival  of  Manuel  de  Verdeja  y  Cosio  as  his 
colleague.  There  was  a  lively  quarrel  on  foot  with  the  governor, 
Juan  Diaz  Pimienta,  to  whom  the  tribunal  had  imputed  the  con- 
cealment of  the  property  of  a  person  deceased.  The  two  secre- 
taries, Echarri  and  Ventura  de  Urtecho,  took  his  part  and  were 
excommunicated  and  arrested,  Urtecho  being  banished  for  eight 
years  and  Echarri  ordered  to  leave  the  city  within  twenty-four 
hours,  while  his  son  was  thrown  into  the  secret  prison.  On 
the  other  hand,  Pimienta  seized  Luis  de  Cabrera,  the  notary  of 
sequestrations,  and  threw  him  into  the  fort  of  Bocachica,  where 
he  died  in  the  course  of  eight  months,  and,  on  another  occasion, 
acting  on  a  royal  order,  he  took,  from  Lazaeta's  house,  Julian 
Antonio  de  Tejada,  who  had  been  sent  out  to  report  on  the  cap- 
ture. To  avenge  these  insults,  the  tribunal  commenced  twenty- 
four  prosecutions  against  the  governor,  but  it  was  in  no  position  to 
assert  itself.  In  a  letter  of  February  27,  1706,  it  exhaled  its 
griefs.  Ozaeta  and  Verdeja  were  ailing — one  wanted  to  go  to 
Spain  and  the  other  to  be  transferred  to  Mexico.  Everything 
was  in  ruin;  the  money  coffer  was  empty;  for  ten  years  no  galleons 

1  MSS.  of  the  Library  of  the  Univ.  of  Halle,  Yc,  17. 


500  NEW  GRANADA 

had  arrived ;  Pimienta  slighted  Lazaeta  at  every  turn,  so  that  for 
eighteen  months  he  had  been  obliged  to  shut  himself  up  in  his 
house.  As  for  Ozaeta,  Verdeja,  in  a  letter  of  September  13th, 
accused  him  of  devoting  himself  wholly  to  trade.  He  had  brought 
merchandise  with  him  and  was  the  agent  of  foreign  merchants, 
whose  goods  he  introduced  without  paying  duties,  and  there  was 
no  business  of  this  kind,  throughout  the  extensive  district  of  the 
tribunal,  that  was  not  under  his  control.  He  was  allowed  to 
enjoy  this  profitable  commerce  until  1716,  when  he  returned  to 
Spain  and  was  rewarded  with  an  appointment  to  the  tribunal 
of  Llerena.1 

He  was  replaced  in  Cartagena  by  Tomds  Gutierrez  Escalante 
who  did  as  little  honor  as  his  predecessor  to  the  Holy  Office, 
though  he  retained  his  position  until  his  death,  in  1738.  He  was 
involved  in  bitter  quarrels  with  the  governor,  Francisco  Baloco, 
of  which  the  details  are  lacking,  though  we  may  assume  that  he 
was  in  fault,  for  constant  complaints  of  him  were  sent  to  the 
Suprema,  and  the  Bishop  Molleda  y  Clerque  (1734-41)  accused 
him  of  interfering  in  matters  beyond  his  jurisdiction  and  that  in 
his  house  there  was  nothing  but  banquets  and  gambling.  One 
of  these  feasts  was  given  in  honor  of  the  saint's  day  of  a  young 
mulatto  girl  whom  he  kept  and  whom  his  guests  had  to  honor.3 
After  this  we  cease  to  hear  of  troubles  with  the  civil  authorities, 
but  the  dissensions  between  the  officials  of  the  tribunal  continued 
to  the  end  of  the  century  and  the  exhortations  and  commands 
of  the  Suprema  were  fruitless  in  maintaining  harmony.3 

The  financial  history  of  the  tribunal,  at  least  during  the  seven- 
teenth century,  is  similar  to  that  which  we  have  already  traced 
in  Mexico  and  Peru.  As  we  have  seen,  when  Philip  III  established 
it  in  1610  he  was  careful  to  specify  that  the  royal  subvention  of 
8400  ducats  was  to  continue  only  as  long  as  the  confiscations 
and  fines  and  penalties  were  insufficient;  the  receiver  was  ordered 
to  furnish  a  yearly  statement  of  his  receipts  which  were  to  be 


1  Medina,  pp.  366-7.  J  Ibidem,  p.  368.  •  Ibidem,  pp.  372-6. 


FINANCES  501 

deducted  from  the  payments  to  be  made  by  the  treasury.  Clearly 
as  this  program  was  laid  out,  it  is  perhaps  needless  to  say  that  it 
never  received  the  slightest  attention  from  the  tribunal.  It 
had  not  been  long  in  operation  when  the  fruits  of  its  industry 
began  to  pour  in.  A  letter  of  July  22, 1621,  conveyed  the  pleasing 
information  that  it  had  secured  the  handsome  sum  of  149,000 
pesos  from  the  confiscated  estate  of  the  Judaizer  Francisco 
Gomez  de  Leon.1  Windfalls  such  as  this  were  of  course  excep- 
tional, but  a  more  or  less  steady  stream  of  smaller  amounts  can 
scarce  have  failed  to  reward  its  activity.  Still  this  brought 
no  relief  to  the  royal  treasury,  which  was  regularly  called  upon 
for  the  subvention  and,  in  1630,  we  chance  to  hear  of  the 
complaints  of  the  treasury  officials,  who  were  summoned  before 
the  tribunal  and  scolded  when  they  had  not  funds  wherewith 
to  meet  the  demands  promptly.2  In  1633  there  duly  came  the 
suppression  of  a  canonry  in  every  cathedral  of  the  district  for  the 
benefit  of  the  tribunal — a  measure  designed  for  the  relief  of  the 
royal  treasury — but  the  revenues  of  the  prebends  were  quietly 
absorbed  without  relaxing  hold  on  the  subvention. 

Wealth  flowed  in  with  the  discovery  of  Judaizers  in  1636,  whose 
confiscations  were  announced  in  the  auto  de  fe  of  March  25,  1638. 
That  of  Juan  Rodriguez  Mesa  amounted  to  65,000  pesos;  that  of 
Bias  de  Paz  Pinto  to  50,000;  of  Francisco  Rodriguez  Pinto  to 
40,000,  while  the  smaller  ones  brought  the  aggregate  up  to  200,000, 
as  reported,  June,  1638,  by  Andres  de  Castro  the  receiver  who 
assuredly  did  not  exaggerate,  and  besides  this  there  were  confis- 
cations in  Havana  amounting  to  150,000.3  In  1639  there  came 
orders  to  sell  at  auction  three  varas  of  alguaziles,  one  each  in 
Santa  Fe,  Caracas  and  Popayan,  but  competition  was  not  eager 
and  we  do  not  know  the  amount  realized.4  The  tribunal  was 
evidently  accumulating  abundant  capital,  although  it  was  obliged 
to  contribute  a  part  of  its  gains  to  the  Suprema.  In  1644  the 
latter  alludes  to  a  remittance  shortly  expected  from  Cartagena 

1  Medina,  p.  157.  2  Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  20,  fol.  59. 

8  Medina,  p.  230.  4  Ibidem,  p.  231. 


502  NEW  GRANADA 

of  about  10,000  ducats;  by  a  letter  of  September  24,  1650,  it 
appears  that  the  tribunal  admitted  to  having  on  hand  187,677 
pesos;  according  to  a  certificate  of  June  30,  1659,  there  had  been 
deposited  in  the  money  coffer  430,414  pesos  and,  although  there 
had  been  more  than  100,000  remitted  to  the  Suprema,  there  was 
ample  left.  In  addition  there  were  houses  and  lands;  there  were 
95,332  invested  in  censos,  yielding  about  4000  a  year  but  the 
royal  subvention  was  still  regularly  collected,  the  8400  ducats 
being  reckoned  at  11,500  pesos.1 

The  subvention  continued  to  be  paid  though,  with  the  increas- 
ing penury  of  the  Spanish  treasury,  it  was  apt  to  be  in  arrears. 
In  1670  we  find  the  Suprema  ordering  the  tribunal  to  use  gentle 
methods;  it  learns  that  the  garrison  is  unpaid  and  therefore  the 
fault  may  be  with  the  governor;  the  last  payment  collected  was 
for  the  tercio  (four  months)  of  November,  1668,  and  the  annual 
amount  alluded  to  is  8400  ducats.  The  tribunal  was  not  satisfied 
and,  in  its  replies  of  May  6  and  Octobers,  1671,  it  asks  for  permis- 
sion to  apply  pressure;  the  governor  excuses  himself  by  the 
expenditures  necessary  to  provide  for  the  safety  of  the  place, 
but  these  pretexts  will  never  be  lacking,  the  civil  salaries  are 
regularly  paid  and  the  garrison  is  partially  so.  Yet  the  arrear- 
age to  the  tribunal  had  been  diminished  and  was  reduced  to  only 
three  tercios,  showing  that  at  least  two  years'  subvention  had  been 
collected  during  the  past  twelvemonth.2  Then  the  arrearage 
increased  and  on  April  17, 1674,  the  tribunal  reported  it  at  nearly 
eighteen  months,  whereupon  the  Suprema,  February  3,  1675, 
addressed  a  strong  remonstrance  to  the  queen-regent,  threatening 
that  if  the  officials  were  not  paid  regularly  they  would  be  obliged 
to  desert  their  posts;  it  recapitulated  the  financial  history  of  the 
tribunal;  the  royal  grant,  in  1610,  of  8400  ducats  per  annum,  until 
the  confiscations  and  fines  and  penances  should  suffice,  followed 
by  the  suppression  of  the  prebends  in  1633,  and  it  had  the 
effrontery  to  assert  that  since  then  the  prebends  and  fines  and 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  36,  fol.  74. — Medina,  pp.  262,  265-66. 
J  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  40,  fol.  112,  120. 


FINANCES  503 

penances  had  been  deducted  from  the  subvention;  the  royal 
officials  asserted  that  there  were  no  moneys  appropriated  for  the 
purpose,  and  that  they  could  not  pay  without  special  orders, 
wherefore  the  queen  was  asked  to  make  the  subvention  a  first 
charge  on  the  treasury.  Against  this  the  Council  of  Indies  pro- 
tested vigorously  on  March  9th,  going  over  the  whole  history  of 
the  matter  and  pointing  out  that  whatever  was  paid  to  the 
Inquisition  must  be  withdrawn  from  the  protection  of  the  coasts, 
ravaged  constantly  by  the  buccaneers,  and  especially  of  Cartagena, 
which  was  the  object  of  their  special  cupidity.  In  fact,  large 
expenditures  were  making  on  the  defences  of  the  city,  which  was 
the  entrepot  of  the  shipments  of  the  precious  metals  to  Spain; 
as  the  Council  stated,  the  royal  treasuries  of  Santa  Fe  and  Quito 
had  already  been  drawn  upon  to  the  amount  of  17,390,300  mrs.  for 
that  purpose.1 

The  debate  went  on,  without  either  side  abandoning  its  position. 
The  Suprema,  on  May  11, 1676,  insisted  that  the  subvention  was 
a  necessity  for  the  tribunal.  Five  of  the  canonries  produced  a 
total  of  only  2535  pesos  and  the  sixth,  of  Puerto  Rico,  only  about 
100;  the  revenues  from  investments  were  5491  pesos  while  the 
expenses  were  18,770,  so  that  even  with  the  subvention  there 
was  a  deficit.  It  is  evident  that  not  much  faith  was  felt  in  these 
figures,  for  the  Count  of  Penaranda,  in  a  consulta  of  December 
10,  1677,  pointed  out  that  there  never  had  been  any  statement 
furnished  as  to  the  amount  of  the  confiscations  and  fines  and 
penances,  nor  had  any  effort  been  made  to  obtain  from  Carta- 
gena and  Peru,  as  there  had  been  from  Mexico,  restitution  of  the 
sums  improperly  obtained  from  the  treasury,  to  which  they  were 
evidently  large  enough  to  afford  sensible  relief.2 

In  some  Cartagena  documents  of  1684  we  find  the  first  evi- 
dence that  the  treasury  had  the  benefit  of  other  receipts  of 
the  tribunal.  On  June  2d  the  receiver  presented  to  Inquisitor 
Valera  a  dolorous  complaint  as  to  the  financial  condition.  In  the 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  40,  fol.  122,  132. 

2  Ibidem,  fol.  139,  54. 


504  NEW  GRANADA 

failure  to  collect  the  royal  subvention  it  had  been  impossible  to 
pay  the  salaries  and  other  expenses  without  drawing  upon  the 
funds  held  for  creditors  of  confiscated  estates  awaiting  settlement. 
The  buildings  of  the  Inquisition  and  its  houses  were  out  of  repair 
and  threatening  ruin;  the  last  payment  obtained  from  the  treasury 
was  up  to  the  end  of  October,  1678,  since  when  there  had  accrued 
61,764  pesos,  5  reales,  22  mrs.  from  which  was  to  be  deducted,  of 
collections  from  the  canonries,  8221  pesos,  3  quartellos,  leaving 
a  balance  due  of  53,543  pesos,  4  reales,  31  mrs.,  which  Valera  was 
urged  to  collect  in  order  that  the  fund  held  for  creditors  might 
be  reimbursed  and  the  necessary  repairs  made  to  the  buildings. 
Thereupon  Valera  addressed  to  the  governor,  Don  Juan  Pando  de 
Estrada,  a  vigorous  appeal,  embodying  the  receiver's  statement 
of  the  account  and  asking  at  least  for  a  partial  payment.  The 
governor  submitted  this  to  the  treasury  officials,  who  admitted 
the  correctness  of  the  statement,  and  from  their  figures  it  appears 
that  in  the  settlements  from  November  1,  1675,  to  October  31, 
1678,  due  allowance  had  been  made  for  receipts  from  the  canonries 
— but  they  add  that  in  1680  a  royal  cedula  had  ordered  the  arch- 
bishop and  bishops  to  report  to  them  all  payments  to  the  tribunal 
on  account  of  the  canonries,  an  order  which  had  been  obeyed  only 
by  the  Bishop  of  Cartagena.  They  professed  the  utmost  desire 
to  pay  the  Inquisition  and  deplored  their  inability,  in  view  of  the 
demands  of  the  home  government  for  remittances  and  the  indis- 
pensable outlays  for  the  maintenance  and  safety  of  the  city. 

This  the  governor  transmitted  to  the  tribunal  with  the  assurance 
of  his  deep  regret  and  a  request  for  a  statement  of  its  other  receipts, 
in  order  that  an  accurate  balance  could  be  reached.  Valera  met 
this  last  demand  by  procuring  from  the  receiver  and  his  predeces- 
sor sworn  statements  that  nothing  had  been  received  from  con- 
fiscations, fines  and  penances,  the  truth  of  which  may  be  doubted 
in  view  of  the  receiver's  previous  complaint  as  to  the  use  made 
of  the  sums  in  litigation  with  creditors  of  confiscated  penitents — 
but  he  added  that,  if  there  had  been  receipts  from  these  sources, 
they  were  especially  appropriated  to  the  secret  and  necessary 


FINANCES  505 

expenses  of  the  Inquisition,  which  was  a  manifest  falsehood. 
Moreover,  as  the  tribunal  was  a  creditor  of  the  treasury, 
and  it  appeared  that  there  were  no  funds  applicable  to  the 
discharge  of  the  debt,  it  had  a  right  to  have  a  detailed 
statement  of  receipts  and  expenditures,  to  lay  before  the  king, 
with  a  request  for  relief.  What  reply  the  governor  made  to 
this  impudent  demand,  we  have  no  means  of  knowing,  but  we 
may  assume  that  the  tribunal  fared  no  better  in  the  future.  It 
had  appealed,  October  1,  1683,  to  the  Suprema,  setting  forth  its 
deplorable  condition;  as  it  was  forbidden  to  use  pressure,  it  was 
at  the  mercy  of  the  officials  and  it  asked  that  the  treasurers  of 
Santa  Fe  and  Quito  be  instructed  to  remit  directly  to  its  receiver. 
For  some  reason  this  appeal  was  not  considered  by  the  Suprema 
until  April  10,  1685,  and  then  it  was  simply  ordered  to  be  filed 
away  with  the  other  papers.1 

We  may  reasonably  assume  that  much  of  the  distress,  thus 
movingly  represented,  was  fictitious,  to  parry  the  demands  of 
the  Suprema  for  the  contributions  which  it  was  accustomed  to 
exact.  Notwithstanding  the  recalcitrancy  of  the  royal  officials, 
the  tribunal  by  diligent  siege  managed  to  extract  an  occasional 
payment  and,  though  it  unquestionably  suffered  heavily  at  the 
capture  of  Cartagena,  in  1697,  what  with  the  prebends  and  the 
occasional  fortunate  capture  of  a  wealthy  penitent,  it  would 
seem  not  to  have  suffered  from  the  lack  of  means.  At  least  so 
the  Suprema  thought  when,  in  a  letter  of  June  15,  1705,  it  ordered 
the  tribunal  to  be  prompt  in  remitting  the  contribution  demanded 
of  it.  Thus  spurred,  on  February  27,  1706,  it  sent  6000  pesos, 
which  it  stated  it  had  been  obliged  to  borrow,  as  it  had  no  resources 
save  to  pledge  repayment  out  of  the  first  moneys  it  should  receive, 
and  it  expected  to  do  this  out  of  the  estate  of  Don  Juan  de  Zava- 
leta,  the  settlement  of  which  was  hourly  expected.  It  went  on 
to  give  a  dolorous  account  of  its  condition.  The  capture  of  the 
city  had  left  it  in  a  miserable  state — all  the  money  in  its  coffers 
was  taken  and  all  its  buildings  and  houses  were  damaged.  Its 

1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Lib.  40,  fol.  155,  151. 


506  NEW  GRANADA 

chief  means  of  support,  it  says,  is  the  royal  subvention,  but  for 
six  years  it  had  failed  to  receive  any  important  assistance  from 
this;  arrearages  due  amount  to  more  than  140,000  pesos  and  its 
applications  to  the  treasury  are  met  with  enmity  and  ill-will. 
The  suppressed  canonries  produce  less  than  5000  pesos  a  year; 
as  for  the  houses,  they  have  declined  greatly  in  value;  for  more 
than  ten  years  the  galleons  have  ceased  to  visit  the  port  and 
commerce  has  so  decreased  that  the  houses  are  generally  unten- 
anted  and  repairs  consume  most  of  the  rentals  received.1 

In  this  sombre  description  there  is  doubtless  a  large  element  of 
truth.  The  kingdom  of  New  Granada,  though  less  than  two  cen- 
turies old,  was  already  decaying  and  the  Inquisition  necessarily 
suffered  with  the  rest  of  the  community.  Its  poverty  became  so 
pressing  that,  in  1739,  the  houses  held  by  it  were  sold  on  ground- 
rents.  To  add  to  its  misfortunes,  as  we  have  seen,  in  1741,  during 
the  bombardment  by  Admiral  Vernon,  a  bomb  dismantled  the 
Inquisition  so  that  it  had  to  be  torn  down  and  it  was  not 
rebuilt  until  1766.  Still  the  tribunal  managed  to  exist  and  when, 
in  1811,  it  was  expelled  from  Cartagena,  it  had  4000  pesos  in  its 
coffer.2 

When  came  the  Revolution  the  Inquisition  evidently  had  lost 
all  claim  on  the  respect  of  the  people  and  was  one  of  the  early 
objects  against  which  popular  detestation  was  directed,  rendering 
its  career  in  those  turbulent  times  different  from  that  of  its 
sister  tribunals.  Before  Hidalgo  raised  the  banner  of  revolt, 
in  September,  1810,  already  in  July  insurrection  had  broken  out 
in  Santa  Fe  and,  on  August  13th,  a  revolutionary  Junta  was 
established  in  Cartagena,  although  complete  independence  of  the 
Spanish  crown  was  not  yet  contemplated.  Matters  remained  for 
a  year  in  this  uncertain  condition,  during  which  the  tribunal 
sought  to  ingratiate  itself  with  the  rising  forces  of  Revolution 
by  acquitting  and  discharging  a  patriotic  priest,  Juan  A.  Est&vez 


1  Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Lib.  40,  fol.  116. 
1  Medina,  pp.  367,  400. 


SUSPENSION  507 

sent  to  it  by  the  Santa  Fe  Government  to  be  imprisoned  and  pun- 
ished for  a  sermon  characterized  as  seditious;  and  it  furthermore 
dismissed  its  commissioner,  Doctor  Lasso,  who  had  started  the 
prosecution — a  service  warmly  recognized  by  the  Supreme  Junta 
in  a  manifesto  of  September  25,  1810.1 

As  in  Spain,  the  Liberals  were  careful  to  proclaim  their  adhesion 
to  the  principle  of  intolerance.  The  Constitution  of  Cadiz  in 
1812  declared  that  the  Catholic,  Apostolic,  Roman  faith  was  the 
religion  of  the  State  and  that  no  other  worship,  public  or  private, 
would  be  permitted,  while  the  Articles  of  Federation  of  the 
Provinces  of  New  Granada  enumerated  among  their  duties  that 
of  maintaining  the  Catholic  religion  in  its  purity  and  integrity.2 
Yet  when  the  Revolution  culminated  for  the  time  in  Carta- 
gena, November  11,  1811,  by  an  armed  rising  of  the  people,  one 
of  the  demands  made  on  the  Junta  was  that  the  Inquisition  be 
suppressed  and  the  inquisitors  be  handed  their  passports.  The 
Junta  was  prompt  in  executing  the  popular  wishes.  The  same 
day  it  issued  a  decree  that  all  who  did  not  favor  independence 
should  leave  the  country  within  eight  days,  and  it  summoned 
the  various  corporations  to  come  forward  and  take  the  oath  of 
independence.8  The  next  day,  notice  was  sent  to  the  tribunal 
that  its  existence  was  incompatible  with  the  new  order  of  affairs, 
and  that  the  inquisitors,  with  such  officials  as  desired  to  follow 
them,  must  sail  for  Spain  within  fifteen  days,  while  those  who 
remained  must  forthwith  take  the  oath;  all  papers  were  to  be 
transferred  to  the  bishops  of  the  dioceses  to  which  they  referred 
and  the  property  was  to  be  made  over  to  the  public  treasury. 
To  this  the  inquisitors  replied,  on  the  following  day,  that  the 
decision  had  been  extorted  by  an  armed  mob  and,  as  soon  as 
popular  agitation  should  subside,  they  expected  to  resume  the 
august  functions  confided  to  them  by  Divine  Providence.  Insist- 
ence, however,  brought  compliance  and,  on  November  28th,  they 
announced  their  readiness  to  go,  though  not  to  Spain ;  the  authori- 
ties took  possession  of  all  their  property  and  the  papers  connected 

1  Groot,  II,  230.  z  Ibidem,  pp.  226,  232.  s  Ibidem,  pp.  230-1. 


508  NEW  GRANADA 

therewith,  but  it  was  not  until  December  17th  that  their  passports 
were  sent,  and  further  delays  postponed  their  departure  until 
January  1,  1812,  when  they  sailed  for  Santa  Marta.  There  they 
erected  their  tribunal  and  remained  for  about  a  year,  when  the 
occupation  of  the  place  by  the  revolutionary  forces  caused  their 
transfer  to  Puertobelo.  When  Santa  Marta  was  regained  by  the 
royalists  they  returned  there  and  soon  afterwards  they  received 
news  of  the  suppression  of  the  Inquisition  by  the  Cortes  of 
Cadiz  in  February,  1813.  This  rendered  their  condition  more 
precarious  than  ever.  In  a  report  of  July  8,  1815,  they  state 
that  on  their  ejection  from  Cartagena,  they  notified  the  various 
chapters  to  preserve  the  fruits  of  their  prebends  for  them;  those 
of  Santiago  de  Cuba,  Havana  and  Panamd  came  regularly,  but 
were  paid  into  the  royal  treasury;  those  of  Puertobelo  and  Santo 
Domingo  were  held  back  through  fear  of  pirates ;  that  of  Caracas 
by  the  revolution,  so  that  they  were  in  arrears  of  their  salaries 
by  five  tercios  and  had  been  living  on  borrowed  money.1  If 
their  salaries  were  but  twenty  months  in  arrears,  in  July,  1815,  it 
indicates  that  the  previous  complaints  of  poverty  had  been  exag- 
gerated and  it  suggests  that,  in  spite  of  the  seizure  of  property, 
they  had  succeeded  in  carrying  from  Cartagena  a  fair  supply 
of  funds. 

The  triumph  of  the  Spanish  War  of  Independence  and  the 
restoration  of  Fernando  VII  in  the  Spring  of  1814  changed  the 
face  of  affairs.  The  whole  power  of  the  monarchy  could  be 
directed  to  the  subjugation  of  the  revolted  colonies  and,  in  1815, 
a  heavy  force  was  sent,  under  Don  Pablo  Morillo,  to  effect  that 
of  New  Granada.  Although  the  Inquisition  had  been  revived  in 
Spain  by  royal  decree  of  July  21,  1814,  it  was  not  until  March  31, 
1815,  that  the  joyful  news  reached  Santa  Marta,  where  the  inquisi- 
tors celebrated  it  with  a  solemn  mass  and  Te  Deum  and  the 
announcement  that  they  resumed  their  duties,  although,  to  keep 
up  the  semblance  of  a  tribunal,  they  had  appointed  as  fiscal  the 
alcaide  of  the  secret  prison  and  as  secretary  the  alcaide  of  the 

1  Medina,  pp.  398-407. 


RE-ESTABLISHMENT  509 

penitential  prison.  Morillo  reached  Santa  Marta  on  July  24th 
and  on  August  15th  he  advanced  to  reduce  Cartagena,  accom- 
panied by  the  senior  inquisitor,  Jos£  Oderiz,  whom  he  appointed 
as  teniente  vicario  general  of  his  army.  After  a  siege  of  a  hundred 
days,  in  which  the  inhabitants  were  almost  destroyed  by  famine 
and  pestilence,  Cartagena  fell  on  December  6th  and  Oderiz  at 
once  took  measures  to  seize  prohibited  books  and  resume  his 
authority.  The  other  inquisitor,  Prudencio  de  Castro,  deferred 
the  transfer  of  the  tribunal  until  May,  1816,  awaiting  the  restora- 
tion of  sanitary  conditions  in  the  unhappy  city,  and  it  could 
not  fully  commence  operations  until  January  21,  1817,  the  date 
at  which  the  two  secretaries,  who  had  remained  behind,  were 
reinstated  in  office,  after  undergoing  the  process  of  "  purification, " 
to  remove  all  taint  of  liberalism.  Morillo  himself  had  accepted 
the  position  of  honorary  alguazil.1 

On  April  29,  1818,  there  was  a  solemn  publication  of  the  Edict 
of  Faith  and  of  the  Edict  of  Grace  of  the  Suprema  for  heresies 
occasioned  by  the  war.  This  was  followed  in  the  afternoon  by 
a  procession  through  the  streets  carrying  the  banner  of  the 
Inquisition;  the  standard-bearer  was  Colonel  Jiminez,  accom- 
panied by  the  principal  officers  of  the  army,  to  whom  the  cere- 
monial was  a  farce,  for  we  are  told  that  they  were  nearly  all 
Free-Masons.2  It  was  not  until  near  the  end  of  the  year,  how- 
ever, that  the  organization  of  the  tribunal  was  completed,  by 
the  arrival  of  the  new  fiscal,  Jose*  Antonio  de  Aguirrezabal. 
Although  thus  ready  for  business,  it  had  little  to  do,  in  the 
disturbed  condition  of  the  land,  and  it  was  in  no  condition 
to  render  active  service.  As  it  reported,  September  25,  1819, 
it  was  suffering  acutely  from  poverty,  without  means  to  repair 
its  building  which  threatened  ruin;  it  was  unable  to  imprison 
offenders  because  they  could  not  be  fed ;  the  salaries  were  unpaid 
and  the  officials  had  no  means  of  livelihood,  for  there  were  no 
charitable  hands  to  solace  their  misery.  In  fact,  its  last  case 
was  that  of  Don  Rafael  Barragan  of  Santa  Fe,  for  propositions. 

1  Medina,  pp.  408-12.— Groot,  II,  473.  '  Groot,  II,  472-3. 


610  NEW  GRANADA 

His  accusation  dated  back  to  1813;  after  infinite  trouble  he  was 
thrown  into  the  secret  prison  and,  in  September,  1818,  his  sentence 
was  read  in  the  audience  chamber  with  closed  doors;  he  abjured 
de  levi  and  was  absolved  ad  cautelam.1 

The  Revolution  of  1820  in  Spain  revived  the  energies  of  the 
patriots  who  felt  that  they  had  little  to  fear  from  further  efforts 
of  subjugation.  The  suppression  of  the  Inquisition  by  the  royal 
decree  of  March  9,  1820,  seems  to  have  attracted  little  attention 
in  New  Granada  and,  if  the  tribunal  continued  to  exist,  it  must 
have  disappeared  when  Cartagena  was  captured  by  the  revolu- 
tionists in  October,  1821.  Still,  on  September  3d  of  that  year  the 
Vice-president  of  the  United  States  of  Colombia,  Doctor  Jose 
Marfa  Castillo,  deemed  it  necessary  to  issue  a  decree  declaring 
the  Inquisition  abolished.  No  traces  of  it  should  be  allowed 
to  exist  and  therefore  the  authorities  of  Cundinamarca  were 
ordered  not  to  permit  the  commissioner  in  Santa  Fe  to  exercise 
his  office.  In  future  no  inquisitorial  edicts  should  be  published, 
no  books  should  be  suppressed  except  by  the  Government  and  no 
ecclesiastical  authority  should  supervise  their  importation.  As 
the  commissioner  at  Santa  Fe,  Doctor  Santiago  Torres,  had  pre- 
viously died  in  exile,  the  zeal  of  the  vice-president  was  some- 
what superfluous  except  in  so  far  as  the  edict  deprived  the  bishops 
of  censorship.2 

Shortly  after  this  the  Congress  of  the  United  States  of  Colombia 
adopted  a  law  declaring  the  Inquisition  extinguished  forever  and 
never  to  be  re-established.  All  its  properties  were  appropriated 
to  the  State.  The  bishops  were  restored  to  their  ancient  juris- 
diction over  matters  of  faith,  but  appeal  from  their  decisions  lay 
to  the  civil  courts.  This  however  applied  exclusively  to  Catholics. 
Foreigners  of  other  faiths  were  assured  against  molestation  on 
account  of  religion,  so  long  as  they  observed  due  respect  to  the 
national  one,  and  finally  the  civil  power  assumed  to  regulate  the 
external  discipline  of  the  Church,  such  as  the  prohibition  of  books 
and  similar  matters.8  As  the  United  States  of  Colombia  then 


1  Medina,  pp.  414-16.       » Groot,  III,  124, 142-3, 151.       '  Ibidem,  pp.  143-44. 


MULTIPLICITY  OF  JURISDICTIONS  511 

embraced  the  whole  of  the  Spanish  South  American  posses- 
sions, north  of  Peru,  these  liberal  principles  were  effective  over 
a  wide  expanse  of  territory  and,  when  the  victory  of  Ayacucho, 
December  10,  1824,  finally  destroyed  the  Spanish  power  in  Peru 
and  liberated  the  colonies,  the  last  chance  disappeared  that  the 
reactionary  government  of  Spain  might  attempt  to  revive  the 
Inquisition. 

Many  causes  contributed  to  the  decay  of  the  Spanish  colonies, 
but  among  them  not  the  least  was  the  impossibility  of  settled  and 
orderly  administration  occasioned  by  the  multiplicity  of  rival 
jurisdictions,  inherited  from  the  medieval  conceptions  of  the  rela- 
tions of  Church  and  State.  There  were  the  military  represented 
by  the  viceroy,  and  the  civil  by  the  Audiencia;  the  spiritual, 
exercised  by  the  bishops  over  the  secular  clergy ;  the  numerous 
Regular  Orders,  exempt  from  the  bishops  and  subjected  each  to 
its  own  provincial;  the  Cruzada,  whose  numerous  officials  owed 
obedience  only  to  the  Commissioner  General  or  his  representative, 
and  finally  the  Inquisition  which  claimed  supremacy  over  all,  in 
a  sphere  of  action  the  limits  of  which  it  defined  practically  at 
its  pleasure.  Of  these  the  most  disturbing  element  was  the 
Inquisition,  armed  with  the  irresistible  weapon  of  excommuni- 
cation, by  which  it  could  paralyze  its  antagonists  at  will,  and  the 
arbitrary  power  of  arrest,  which  inspired  general  terror.  We 
have  seen  what  manner  of  men  it  was  that  Spain  habitually  sent 
to  the  colonies  to  wield  this  irresponsible  authority,  the  use  which 
they  made  of  it  and,  when  their  abuse  of  it  became  unbearable, 
how  they  were  rewarded  by  transfer  to  better  tribunals  or  to 
episcopal  seats.  The  commissioners  whom  they  distributed 
through  the  provinces  aped  their  masters  and  carried  oppres- 
sion and  discord  to  every  corner  of  the  land,  while  the  aegis 
of  protection  was  extended  over  every  criminal  who  could 
claim  any  connection,  however  illusory  or  fraudulent,  with  the 
tribunals. 

Complaints  to  the  Council  of  Indies  came  pouring  in  by  every 


512  XEW  GRANADA 

fleet  from  bishops,  governors,  officials  and  individuals.  These 
were  duly  laid  before  the  king,  who  referred  them  to  the  Suprema; 
it  would  promise  to  call  for  a  report  from  the  tribunals  and  this 
would  be  the  last  of  the  matter,  for  however  severely  it  might 
berate  its  subordinates  in  secret,  it  steadfastly  defended  them  in 
public.  In  1696  the  Council  submitted  an  elaborate  consulta  to 
Carlos  II,  recapitulating  a  number  of  flagrant  cases,  occurring 
from  Mexico  to  Cumand,  and  its  fruitless  efforts  to  obtain  redress; 
it  pointed  out  how  completely  the  tribunals  disregarded  the 
provisions  of  the  Concordias  and  the  impossibility  of  securing 
their  observance;  it  suggested  various  reforms,  the  most  radical 
of  which  was  depriving  the  Inquisition  of  its  temporal  jurisdiction; 
it  declared  the  matter  to  be  of  greater  importance  than  any 
other  that  could  arise  in  the  monarchy,  and  it  concluded  with 
an  earnest  and  eloquent  appeal  for  immediate  action.  The 
Inquisition,  it  said,  was  founding  a  supreme  monarchy,  superior 
to  all  others  in  the  State.  It  was  regarded  with  universal  hatred 
in  all  the  regions  of  the  Indies  and  with  servile  fear  by  all,  from 
the  lowest  to  the  greatest.1 

Of  course  nothing  was  done  and  the  condition  of  the  colonies 
went  on  steadily  deteriorating.  To  this  the  Inquisition  con- 
tributed not  only  as  a  leading  factor  in  internal  misgovernment, 
but  also  by  its  hideous  system  under  which  the  affluence  of  the 
tribunals  depended  upon  the  confiscations  which  they  could  levy. 
We  have  seen  how  large  a  part  this  played  in  their  financial  vicis- 
situdes and  how  it  was  regarded  on  all  hands  with  eager  expecta- 
tion, and  it  is  doing  no  injustice  to  the  kind  of  men  sent  out  as 
inquisitors  to  assume  that  it  was  a  motive  far  more  potent  than 
the  desire  to  maintain  the  faith  with  exact  justice.  To  say 
nothing  of  the  cruel  wrongs  inflicted  on  countless  victims,  com- 
merce could  not  flourish  when  the  gains  of  the  trader  only  served 
to  render  him  a  tempting  prey  to  such  men,  armed  with  irrespon- 
sible power  exercised  through  the  inquisitorial  process  and 
shielded  from  criticism  by  the  secrecy  of  procedure  and  the  stern 

1  MSS.  of  Library  of  University  of  Halle,  Yc,  17. 


CONDITION  OF  THE  COLONIES  513 

punishment  administered  for  complaint.  The  Suprema  was  con- 
stantly calling  for  remittances  and,  to  satisfy  its  exigencies  and 
their  own  wants,  there  could  be  small  hesitation  in  prosecuting 
any  merchant  whose  success  might  excite  cupidity,  especially  when 
trade  was  so  largely  in  the  hands  of  descendants  of  New  Chris- 
tians. The  benumbing  effect  of  this  on  the  withering  prosperity 
of  the  colonies  is  self-evident. 

How  it  fared  with  New  Granada,  under  all  the  various 
depressing  influences  of  Spanish  policy,  is  described  in  a  re- 
port, made  in  1772,  by  Francisco  Antonio  Moreno  y  Escandon. 
The  condition  of  the  colony  is  represented  as  most  deplorable 
and  the  tone  of  the  report  is  that  of  utter  hopelessness,  in  view 
of  the  universal  decay  and  dilapidation.  The  local  officials 
everywhere  were  indifferent  and  neglectful  of  duty;  the  people 
steeped  in  poverty;  trade  almost  extinct;  capital  lacking  and  no 
opportunities  of  its  employment,  for  the  only  source  of  support 
was  the  cultivation  of  little  patches  of  land  and  the  mining  of  the 
precious  metals.  There  were  no  manufactures  and  no  means  of 
retaining  money  in  the  country,  for,  though  it  was  bountiful  in 
products,  it  was  unable  to  cultivate  for  export  in  consequence 
of  the  restrictions  imposed  by  the  home  Government;  if  freedom 
of  export  could  be  had  for  its  cocoa,  tobacco,  precious  woods,  etc., 
it  would  flourish.  The  mines  were  still  as  rich  as  ever,  but  their 
product  was  greatly  decreased;  the  province  of  Chico,  which  had 
large  mineral  wealth,  was  approachable  by  the  river  Atrato  but, 
since  1730,  the  navigation  of  that  stream  was  forbidden  under 
pain  of  death.  It  is  true  that,  in  1772,  Viceroy  Mexia  obtained 
permission  to  send  two  vessels  a  year  up  the  river,  but  the 
permits  for  this  were  held  at  a  prohibitory  price.  The  com- 
merce with  Spain  consisted  in  one  or  two  ships,  with  regis- 
tered cargoes,  annually  from  Cddiz  to  Cartagena,  whence  the  goods 
were  conveyed  into  the  interior,  but  so  burdened  with  duties 
and  expenses  that  there  was  no  profit  in  the  trade.  In  the  con- 
sequent absence  of  all  industry  every  one  sought  to  obtain  sup- 
port from  the  Government  by  procuring  some  little  office.  The 
33 


514  NEW  GRANADA 

frontier  territories  were  "  Missions/'  under  charge  of  frailes,  the 
different  Orders  having  charge  of  the  various  stations,  while  the 
Government  defrayed  the  expenses  and  furnished  guards  of  sol- 
diers, which  entailed  heavy  outlays  with  little  result.  They 
had  all  been  established  for  at  least  a  century  but  had  failed  to 
advance  the  propagation  of  the  faith,  for  the  Indians,  when 
apparently  converted  and  brought  into  pueblos  or  villages,  would 
run  away  and  take  to  the  mountains.  This  Moreno  explains 
by  the  absence  of  the  apostolic  spirit  on  the  part  of  the  mission- 
aries, who  undertook  the  career  only  to  enjoy  a  life  of  ease  and 
sloth.1  The  spirit  of  the  secular  clergy  was  even  more  reprehen- 
sible, if  we  may  believe  the  relation  drawn  up  by  Viceroy  Manuel 
de  Guirior,  in  1776,  for  the  guidance  of  his  successor.  The  deplor- 
able condition  of  the  Church  he  ascribes  to  its  subordinating  its 
spiritual  duties  to  the  exaction  of  taxes  and  tithes,  in  illustration 
of  which  he  states  that  the  parish  priests  omitted  from  their 
registers  the  records  of  marriages,  baptisms  and  interments,  in 
order  to  evade  payment  of  the  excessive  fees  levied  by  the  bishops 
on  their  official  functions.2  To  appreciate  the  full  import  of  this 
we  must  bear  in  mind  that  on  the  completeness  and  accuracy 
of  the  parish  registers  depended  the  position  in  the  community 
of  every  individual. 

This  degrading  secularization  of  the  Church  was  not  confined 
to  New  Granada.  When,  in  1735,  Don  Jorje  Juan  and  Don 
Antonio  de  Ulloa  were  sent  to  Quito,  in  company  of  the  French 
men  of  science,  to  measure  an  equatorial  degree  of  the  earth's 
surface,  they  were  commissioned  to  investigate  and  report  as  to 
the  condition  of  the  colony  in  all  its  various  aspects.  The 
voluminous  and  detailed  report  which  they  presented,  some  ten 
years  later,  to  the  Marquis  of  la  Ensenada,  under  Fernando  VI, 
gives  a  vivid  picture  of  the  disorders  of  clerical  life.  Public 
prostitutes  were  scarce  known  in  the  cities,  for  licence  and  con- 


1  Relaciones  de  los  Vireyes  del  Nuevo  Reino  de  Granada,  pp.  26-8,  41-3,  67, 
95,  97. 
8  Ibidem,  pp.  112-14. 


CONDITION  OF  THE  COLONIES  515 

cubinage  were  so  universal  that  there  was  no  call  for  professionals. 
Dissolute  as  were  the  laity  the  clergy  were  worse,  and  of  the  clergy 
the  regular  Orders  bore  the  palm  for  the  effrontery  of  their  scan- 
dalous mode  of  life — excepting,  indeed,  the  Jesuits  who  are  highly 
praised  for  their  assiduity  in  their  duties  and  the  strictness  with 
which  the  regulations  of  the  Society  were  enforced,  by  the  expul- 
sion of  all  unworthy  members.  The  disorders  of  the  others  are 
attributed  to  their  wealth  and  idleness.  The  position  of  a  pro- 
vincial of  any  of  the  larger  Orders,  for  the  regular  term  of  three 
years,  was  worth  from  300,000  to  400,000  pesos,  derived  from 
the  patronage  of  guardianships,  priories,  parish  churches  and 
plantations,  which  were  distributed  to  those  of  his  faction  who 
would  pay  proportionately  for  them — payments  for  which  they 
recouped  themselves  by  grinding  exactions  on  their  parishioners 
and  subjects.  The  convents  were  dens  of  prostitution,  occupied 
only  by  those  who  could  not  afford  separate  establishments. 
The  wealthier  ones  lived  in  their  own  houses  with  the  concubines 
whom  they  changed  at  will  and  the  children  in  whom  they  took 
no  shame,  and  these  houses  were  the  scenes  of  gambling,  dancing 
and  drinking,  causing  frequent  scandalous  disorders  which  the 
police  were  unable  to  check,  as  the  civil  power  had  no  jurisdic- 
tion over  the  clergy.  Notwithstanding  this  extravagance,  their 
revenues  were  so  large  that  all  the  best  lands  in  the  colony  were 
rapidly  passing  into  their  possession,  and  this  was  especially 
the  case  with  the  Jesuits,  who  husbanded  their  resources  and 
managed  their  extensive  properties  with  businesslike  precision. 
What  plantations  were  left  to  the  laity  were  mostly  burdened 
with  heavy  ground-rents  and  there  was  danger,  if  the  process 
were  not  checked,  that  eventually  the  whole  land  would  pass  into 
mainmorte.  As  regards  the  missions,  the  report  bears  the  same 
testimony  as  we  have  seen  in  New  Granada.  With  the  excep- 
tions of  the  Jesuits,  the  Religious  Orders,  whose  presence  in  the 
colony  was  based  on  the  pretext  of  spreading  the  faith,  were  too 
worldly  and  indolent  to  devote  themselves  to  that  duty  and  the 
Jesuits  were  apt  to  find  that  when  they  sought  to  civilize  their 


516  NEW  GRANADA 

converts,  these  interesting  neophytes  would  murder  them  and 
take  to  the  mountains.1 

All  this  frightful  demoralization  was  beneath  the  attention 
of  the  Inquisition.  Its  business  was  the  salvation  of  souls  by 
enforcing  unity  of  faith,  and  its  duties  as  to  morals  were  con- 
fined to  destroying  such  works  of  art  as  it  considered  to  be 
improper.  Yet  Ensenada,  if  he  took  the  trouble  to  read  the 
report  so  laboriously  prepared,  might  reasonably  ask  himself 
whether  a  system  which  led  to  such  results  was  fitted  either 
for  the  spiritual  or  the  material  benefit  of  the  populations 
subjected  to  the  Spanish  monarchy. 

1  Noticias  secretas  de  America,  pp.  489-536,  382-3  (Londres,  1826). 

Juan  and  Ulloa  were  distinguished  men  of  science,  Tenientes  Generales  of  the 
Navy  and  members  of  the  British  Royal  Society  and  of  the  Royal  Academies  of 
Paris,  Berlin  and  Stockholm.  Their  report  was  so  damaging  as  to  the  defence- 
less condition  of  the  ports  that  it  was  jealously  kept  secret  until,  after  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  colonies  had  rendered  this  unimportant,  a  copy  was  procured 
by  Don  David  Barry  and  printed  in  London.  From  casual  allusions  by  the 
authors,  they  seem  to  have  been  good  Catholics  and  punctual  in  religious 
observance. 


APPENDIX. 


i. 

KING  FERDINAND  TO  THE  SICILIAN  INQUISITION,  OCTOBER  25,  1512, 

(Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  III,  fol.  202). 
(See  p.  12). 

EL   REY. 

Inquisidor  entendido  habemos  que  estos  dias  passados  a  causa  de 
ciertos  robos  que  se  facian  en  el  feyo  de  femmy  saluco  ( ?)  que  es  del 
doctor  de  Julien  por  unos  quatro  esclavos  del  dicho  doctor  con  otros 
ladrones  e  bandidos  que  alii  se  recogen  mando  nuestro  visorrey  en  esse 
Reyno  al  Capitan  de  la  dicha  tierra  que  trabajase  en  prenderlos  todos, 
y  diz  que  despues  de  haber  prendido  dos  6  tres  de  ellos  porque  los  otros 
siendo  avisados  se  le  fueron  vos  procedeis  con  censuras  cerca  del  dicho 
capitan  para  que  estos  entreguen  los  dichos  presos,  diciendo  que  son 
del  dicho  doctor  de  Julien  que  es  Official  asalariado  de  esse  Sancto 
Officio  de  la  Inquisicion  y  que  pertenece  a  vos  el  conoscimiento  de  los 
dichos  ladrones,  y  para  que  creyesemos  que  esto  fuesse  asi  se  nos 
embiara  traslado  de  las  provisiones  que  vos  disteis  sobre  esto.  Tene- 
mos  no  poco  sentimiento  que  esse  Sancto  Officio  de  la  Inquisicion 
querais  ponerlo  en  defension  de  los  ladrones  lo  que  no  precede  de 
nuestra  voluntad  que  si  el  doctor  de  Julien  interviene  en  el  vocar  de  los 
processes  no  por  esso  han  de  gozar  de  esempcion  las  personas  que 
tiene  en  sus  heredades  de  mal  bibir  asi  que  nuestra  voluntad  es  y  vos 
mandamos  que  luego  revoqueis  las  dictas  provisiones  y  mandamientos 
que  el  Sancto  officio  de  la  Inquisicion  no  se  ha  de  entremeter  de  tales 
personas.  Tambien  diz  que  esto  otro  dia  se  echo  un  malf  echor  huyendo 
del  Capitan  de  essa  Giudad  en  la  cassa  de  esse  Sancto  Officio  de  la 
Inquisicion  y  siguiendolo  los  Officiales  del  dicho  Capitan  lo  defendieron 
vuestros  Officiales  y  mynistros  mano  armada.  Esto  da  ocassion  de 
escandolo  y  porque  algun  dia  vos  y  vuestros  Officiales  seays  poco  aca- 
tados  proveed  que  tales  cossas  no  se  fagan  que  no  se  podrian  tolerar 
con  paciencia,  pues  lo  que  se  dice  que  se  face  en  la  Adduana  por  no 

(517) 


518  APPENDIX 

pagar  los  derechos  cossa  es  de  muy  mal  exemplo.  Todo  es  menester 
que  se  enmiende  y  no  se  faga  desorden  sino  sera  forcado  que  nuestro 
visorrey  lo  provea  de  una  manera  que  assi  gelo  escribimos  que  los 
Officiates  de  tan  Sancto  Officio  de  la  Inquisicion  religiosamente  han  de 
bibir  y  quitarse  de  toda  manera  de  escandalo  y  incombenientes  y  assi 
sera  el  Officio  de  la  Santa  Inquisicion  mas  honrrado  y  acatado. 

Yo  el  Rey. — Calcena  Secretario. 


II. 

SICILIAN  INSTRUCTIONS  OF  INQUISITOR-GENERAL  MANRIQUE,  JANUARY 

31,  1525. 

(Archivo  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  933,  p.  565). 
(See  p.  20). 

Don  Alonso  Manrique,  por  la  divina  miseracion  arzobispo  de  Se  villa, 
del  consejo  de  sus  Magestades,  inquisidor  apostolico  general  contra  la 
heretica  pravedad  y  apostasia  en  todos  los  sus  reinos  y  senorios.  A 
vos  los  reverendos  inquisidores  contra  la  heretica  pravedad  y  apostasia 
en  el  reino  de  Sicilia  y  a  los  oficiales  y  ministros  del  oficio  de  la  sancta 
inquisicion  del  dicho  reino  a  quien  lo  de  yuso  en  esta  nuestra  carta  con- 
tenido  toca  y  atane  y  a  cada  uno  y  qualquiera  de  vos  salud  y  bendicion. 
Sepades  que  ante  nos  en  el  consejo  de  la  general  inquisicion  se  ha  agora 
visto  y  examinado  el  proceso  de  la  visita  que  el  venerable  Benedicto 
Mercader  maestro  en  sacra  teologia  hizo  en  este  dicho  sancto  oficio 
por  mandado  y  comision  de  nuestro  muy  sancto  Padre  Adriano  Sexto 
de  feliz  recordacion  siendo  inquisidor  general  y  ha  parecido  que  por 
lo  que  conviene  al  servicio  de  Dios  y  de  sus  magestades  y  a  la  buena 
administracion  de  la  justicia  y  por  dar  orden  como  el  santo  oficio  se 
ejercite  y  haga  con  todo  rectitud  y  brevedad  que  se  deben  guardar  y 
cumplir  las  instrucciones  siguientes  por  quanto  por  la  dicha  visita  parece 
que  aquellas  hasta  aqui  no  se  han  guardado  y  es  cosa  justa  y  debida 
que  se  guarden. 

Primeramente  la  instruccion  que  manda  que  en  las  presiones  de  los 
que  se  mandaren  prender  concurran  el  alguacil  para  hacer  y  ejecutar 
su  oficio  y  el  notario  de  sequestros  para  hacer  los  inventarios  de  los 
bienes  que  se  sequestran  y  deudas  y  acciones  y  escrituras  que  se  hallan 
y  el  receptor  para  lo  mismo  por  el  interese  que  puede  suceder  al  fisco 
y  que  con  asistencia  de  todos  tres,  alguacil,  notario  de  sequestros  y 
receptor  se  hagan  y  firmen  los  inventarios  y  sequestros  y  firmados 


APPENDIX  519 

queden  en  poder  del  dicho  notario  de  sequestros  para  hacer  cargo  dellos 
al  dicho  receptor  en  caso  de  condemnacion,  la  qual  instruccion  se  guarde 
como  en  ella  se  contiene  so  pena  de  privacion  de  sus  oficios. 

Item,  la  instruccion  que  dispone  que  en  el  vender  de  los  bienes  con- 
fiscados  concurran  el  receptor  y  notario  de  sequestros  para  que  el  uno 
los  venda  con  las  solemnidades  y  pregones  que  la  instruccion  manda  y 
el  otro  haga  cargo  de  los  precios  y  plazos  en  que  se  venden  so  la  dicha 
pena  y  en  caso  que  ocurrieren  necesidad  que  hayan  de  enviar  otras 
personas  en  su  lugar  sea  con  parecer  de  los  inquisidores  y  las  tales 
personas  sean  de  mucha  confianza. 

Item,  la  instruccion  que  manda  que  el  juez  de  bienes  confiscados  y 
notario  de  su  audiencia  tengan  libros  en  que  asienten  todas  las  condem- 
naciones  de  bienes  que  se  hacen  a  instancia  del  receptor  y  sus  procura- 
dores  para  dar  noticia  dellos  al  notario  de  sequestros  para  que  haga 
cargo  dello  al  receptor  y  que  los  jueces  de  bienes  y  notaries  de  audiencias 
juran  de  ansi  lo  guardar  y  cumplir. 

Item,  la  instruccion  que  manda  que  los  bienes  sequestrados,  por  las 
presiones  de  los  que  se  mandan  prender  queden  en  poder  de  personas 
lianas  y  abonadas  para  acudir  con  ellos  a  quien  los  inquisidores  man- 
daren  y  que  hasta  la  distincion  de  la  causa  criminal  y  principal  y  con- 
denacion  del  preso  los  receptores  no  tengan  entrada  en  los  bienes 
sequestrados  so  la  pena  de  privacion  de  oficio  y  que  vuelvan  lo  que 
asi  entraren  y  ocuparen  de  los  dichos  bienes  sequestrados  con  otro 
tan  to  para  el  oficio  de  la  santa  inquisicion. 

Item,  la  instruccion  que  manda  que  por  evitar  dilaciones  superfluas 
dentro  de  los  quince  dias  de  la  presion  de  cada  uno  se  hagan  las  tres 
amonestaciones  caritativas  y  siendo  negatives  se  presenten  los  acusa- 
ciones  a  los  quince  dias  6  antes  sobre  lo  qual  se  encarga  la  conciencia 
a  los  inquisidores. 

Item,  la  instruccion  que  dispone  que  de  quince  en  quince  dias  se 
visiten  los  presos  para  haber  informacion  de  como  son  tractados  y  pro- 
veidos  y  curados  en  sus  enfermedades. 

Item,  la  instruccion  que  manda  que  en  la  camara  del  secreto  donde 
estan  las  escrituras  del  crimen  no  entren  sino  solos  los  inquisidores 
y  oficiales  del  secreto  so  pena  de  excomunion. 

Item,  la  instruccion  que  manda  que  trabajen  tres  horas  en  la  audien- 
cia de  manana  y  otras  tres  a  la  tarde  sobre  lo  qual  se  encarga  la  con- 
ciencia a  los  inquisidores  para  que  asi  lo  hagan  guardar  y  cumplir. 

Item,  por  quanto  parece  que  la  instruccion  del  area  que  habla  cerca 
del  depositarse  el  dinero  confiscado  que  cobra  el  receptor  no  se  guarda 
de  dos  6  tres  anos  a  esta  parte  y  es  cosa  justa  y  necesaria  que  se  guarde, 
mandamos  que  en  todo  caso  sea  guardada  y  cumplida  so  las  penas  en 
ella  contenidas. 

Item,  que  se  guarden  y  cumplan  de  aqui  adelante  todas  las  otras 
Instrucciones  del  sancto  oficio  porque  aquellas  fueron  hechas  por  los 


520  APPENDIX 

senores  inquisidores  generales  con  mucho  consejo  y  acuerdo  de  letrados 
y  en  generales  congregaciones  para  el  bien  y  observation  de  las  inquisi- 
ciones  particulars  y  que  para  mejor  observacion  dellas  se  lean  aquellas 
dos  veces  en  el  afio  publicamente  en  el  audiencia  delante  de  todos  los 
oficiales,  la  una  vez  por  pascua  de  resurrecion  y  la  otra  por  pascua 
de  Navidad,  y  sobre  esto  encargamos  las  conciencias  a  los  inquisi- 
dores. 

Item,  por  quanto  parece  por  el  dicho  proceso  de  la  visita  que  por  el 
receptor  de  los  bienes  confiscados  se  ban  vendido  muchos  esclavos 
reputados  por  cristianos  que  hobieron  sido  de  condemnados  6  recon- 
ciUados  debiendo  gozar  de  libertad  y  esto  so  color  que  no  mostraban 
f6  y  testimonio  de  su  conversion  y  bautismo,  vos  los  inquisidores  6 
qualquiera  de  vos  si  asi  es  declarareis  estos  tales  esclavos  por  libres  y 
proveereis  que  sean  puestos  en  libertad. 

Item,  porque  parece  y  somos  informado  que  el  inquisidor  Melchior 
Cervera  ya  defunto  anduvo  visitando  por  el  reino  y  recibio  muchas 
informaciones  y  testificaciones  y  es  cosa  justa  y  debida  que  aquellas 
se  pongan  en  la  camara  del  secreto  para  que  se  haya  entera  noticia 
de  las  penas  de  los  que  quebraron  las  carcelerias  y  de  los  bienes  confis- 
cados y  mal  llevados  al  tiempo  de  la  inventariacion  de  los  bienes  hecha 
por  los  comisarios  y  fac tores  y  de  otras  cosas  asi  civiles  como  criminales, 
vos  los  dichos  inquisidores  6  qualquiera  de  vos  proveereis  que  todas  las 
dichas  informaciones  y  testificaciones  se  recojan  y  se  pongan  en  la 
camara  del  secreto,  sino  se  hobiere  ya  cobrado  para  que  se  haya  noticia 
de  las  dichas  cosas  y  se  provea  en  ello  todo  lo  que  fuere  necesario  y  las 
que  pertenecieren  al  oficio  del  receptor  se  le  entreguen  en  presencia  y 
por  ante  el  escribano  de  sequestros. 

Item,  por  quanto  parece  que  las  provisiones  y  letras  del  inquisidor 
general  y  del  consejo  que  se  embian  a  la  dicha  inquisicion  no  vienen 
algunas  veces  al  secretario  ni  se  alcanza  a  saber  lo  que  se  envia  a  mandar 
sino  por  discurso  de  tiempo  mandamos  que  todas  las  dichas  provisiones 
y  cartas  que  hasta  aqui  se  han  despachado  del  inquisidor  general  y  del 
consejo  y  de  aqui  adelante  se  despacharan  se  pongan  en  la  camara  del 
secreto  para  que  de  ellas  se  haya  entera  noticia  y  sean  mejor  guardadas 
y  cumplidas. 

Item,  por  quanto  parece  que  hay  algunos  condenados  a  pena  de  gale- 
ras  y  otras  penas  las  quales  nunca  se  han  ejecutado  mandamos  que  vos 
los  dichos  inquisidores  6  qualquiera  de  vos  veais  esto  con  diligencia  y 
hagais  justicia  sobre  lo  qual  os  encargamos  la  conciencia. 

Item,  por  quanto  somos  informado  quel  notario  de  los  sequestros  ha 
pedido  muchas  veces  que  se  le  de  noticia  de  las  penitencias  impuestas  y 
de  las  que  dende  en  adelante  se  hobieren  de  imponer  para  tener  cuenta 
y  razon  dellas  y  hacer  cargo  al  receptor  6  a  quien  las  habia  recebido 
d  recibiere  y  que  nunca  se  ha  hecho,  mandamos  que  al  escribano  de 
sequestros  se  de  noticia  y  razon  de  todas  las  penitencias  pasadas. 


APPENDIX  521 

• 

Item,  mandamos  que  todas  las  penitencias  que  de  aqui  adelante  se 
impusieren  se  den  al  doctor  Tristan  Calvete  el  qual  tenga  razon  de  las 
dichas  penitencias  y  mandamos  a  los  inquisidores  y  a  qualquiera  dellos 
que  pongan  diligencia  en  cobrar  las  dichas  penitencias  y  ponerlas  en 
el  area  del  sancto  oficio  conforme  a  la  justicia. 

Item,  porque  parece  que  en  la  paga  del  quarto  y  quinto  por  las 
manifestaciones  de  bienes  ocultos  ha  habido  y  hay  abuso  por  los  recep- 
tores  no  guardandose  la  provision  que  sobre  esto  esta  despachado,  man- 
damos que  aquella  se  guarde  y  que  el  dicho  quarto  y  quinto  no  se  pague 
a  los  denunciantes  sino  solo  de  bienes  ocultos  y  que  no  hayan  venido 
a  noticia  del  receptor  ni  de  otros  oficiales  de  esa  inquisicion  y  que  los 
denunciantes  no  sean  oficiales  6  personas  que  por  causa  y  razon  del 
oficio  hayan  sabido  y  manifestado  los  dichos  bienes,  y  mandamos  que 
de  aqui  adelante  no  se  de  por  manifestacion  de  bienes  ocultos  salvo 
la  quinta  parte  de  los  bienes  que  se  cobraren  por  la  tal  manifestacion. 

Item,  por  quanto  parece  que  el  despensero  de  los  presos  tiene  un  mozo 
al  qual  se  da  de  salario  ocho  tarines  cada  dia  y  de  comer,  vos  los  dichos 
inquisidores  6  qualquiera  de  vos  proveereis  en  esto  lo  que  convenga 
de  manera  que  no  tray  a  gastos  superfluos. 

Item,  por  quanto  somos  informado  que  el  escribano  de  sequestros 
anduvo  con  el  inquisidor  Cervera  en  la  visita  de  ese  reino  catorce 
meses  f  uera  de  la  ciudad  de  Palermo  y  que  en  ese  tiempo  se  han  vendido 
muchos  bienes  y  cobrado  muchas  deudas  en  la  dicha  ciudad  y  que  no 
ha  podido  hallar  razon  cuenta  de  lo  que  se  ha  entrado  y  cobrado,  man- 
damos que  vos  los  dichos  inquisidores  6  qualquiera  de  vos  averigueis 
brevemente  con  diligencia  esto  dando  todo  el  favor  que  fuere  menester 
al  contador  y  escribano  de  sequestros. 

Item,  porque  somos  informado  que  en  ese  oficio  se  hacen  muchos 
gastos  que  se  podrian  muy  bien  escusar  y  que  los  inquisidores  dan  los 
mandamientos  para  ello  con  mucha  facilidad  y  es  cosa  justa  y  debida 
se  provea  esto,  mandamos  que  vos  los  inquisidores  6  qualquiera  de  vos 
os  informeis  destos  gastos  extraordinarios  y  proveais  que  de  aqui  ade- 
lante no  se  hagan  gastos  superfluos. 

Item,  porque  parece  que  los  presos  de  la  carcel  estan  alguna  vez 
mal  proveidos  de  ropa  de  cama  porque  a  los  que  son  fuera  de  la  ciudad 
no  les  curan  de  traer  ropa  y  que  seria  bien  que  cuando  el  alguacil  trae 
algun  preso  trugese  ropa  con  el  de  sus  bienes  para  su  cama,  vos  los 
dichos  inquisidores  6  qualquiera  de  vos  provereis  esto  de  manera  que 
los  presos  sean  bien  proveidos  y  tratados. 

Item,  mandamos  que  los  familiares  deste  santo  oficio  sean  personas 
virtuosas,  quietas,  pacificas  y  abonadas  y  que  el  numero  no  sea  super- 
fluo  porque  no  haya  justa  causa  de  quejas  que  lo  mesmo  esta  proveido 
en  las  otras  inquisiciones. 

Item ,  porque  parece  que  por  los  notarios  del  secreto  se  han  examinado 
algunos  testigos  del  crimen  sin  presencia  de  los  inquisidores  6  de  alguno 


522  APPENDIX 

* 

dellos  contra  el  tenor  de  la  instruccion  que  esto  prohibe  mandamos 
que  la  dicha  instruccion  se  guarde  como  en  ella  se  contiene  sobre  lo 
qua!  encargamos  la  conciencia  a  los  inquisidores  y  notaries  del  secreto 
salvo  que  fuere  dificultoso  ir  alguno  de  los  inquisidores  a  hacer  el  dicho 
examen  en  el  qual  caso  el  comisario  juntamente  con  uno  de  los  dichos 
notarios  lo  pueda  hacer  el  qual  comisario  entonce  de  certificacion  de  la 
fe  que  se  debe  dar  a  los  testigos  que  asi  se  examinaren. 

Item,  porque  consta  por  el  proceso  de  la  dicha  visita  que  a  los  oficiales 
y  ministros  dese  sancto  oficio  le  han  hecho  algunas  resistencias  e  injurias 
las  quales  no  han  sido  castigadas  mandamos  que  el  fiscal  haga  acerca 
desto  sus  instancias  debidas  y  vos  los  inquisidores  6  qualquiera  de  vos 
hagais  justicia  porque  a  los  malhechores  sea  castigo  y  a  los  otros  exemplo 
y  los  oficiales  de  aqui  adelante  no  sean  injuriados  ni  maltratados. 

Item,  por  quanto  parece  que  algunas  veces  los  inquisidores  no  entien- 
den  personalmente  en  la  ratificacion  de  los  testigos  y  los  comisarios 
no  guardan  el  secreto  mandamos  que  la  ratificacion  de  los  testigos  se 
haga  ante  vos  los  inquisidores  6  qualquiera  de  vos  y  que  se  guarde 
enteramente  la  instruccion  que  cerca  desto  habla  ansi  en  el  examen 
sumario  como  en  las  ratificaciones. 

Item,  porque  parece  que  algunos  llamandose  comisarios  sin  tener 
comision  ni  poder  del  receptor  han  exigido  y  cobrado  deudas  debidas 
al  fisco  real  en  muchas  partes  asi  en  tiempo  del  receptor  Obregon  como 
de  Garcia  Cid  y  aunque  algunos  dellos  vinieron  a  dar  cuenta  a  los 
receptores  otros  no  la  han  dado,  mandamos  que  el  inquisidor  contador 
y  escribano  de  sequestros  que  agora  van  proveidos  averiguen  esto  con 
mucha  diligencia  y  en  todo  provean  mediante  justicia. 

Item,  parece  que  al  tiempo  que  vino  en  ese  reino  el  ambajador  moro 
de  los  Gelves  el  inquisidor  Calve te  hizo  traer  a  la  inquisicion  un  esclavito 
pequeno  que  los  moros  que  vinieron  con  el  dicho  embajador  le  tenian 
hurtado  para  se  lo  volver  en  Berberia  porque  no  le  llevasen  a  pedi- 
miento  del  duefio  y  tambien  porque  el  mochacho  diz  que  decia  que  queria 
ser  cristiano  y  que  ido  deste  reino  el  dicho  ambajador  entrego  el  dicho 
esclavito  al  fiscal  de  ese  reino  y  no  a  la  parte  cuyo  era  aunque  lo  vino  a 
pedir  diversas  vices.  Porende  mandamos  que  vos  los  dichos  inquisi- 
dores 6  qualquiera  de  vos  proveais  en  esto  lo  que  fuere  de  justicia  de 
manera  que  el  dicho  esclavo  se  vuelva  y  de  y  entregue  a  cuyo  es. 

Item,  parece  que  por  parte  de  un  Francisco  Maynente  preso  por 
herege  se  hobo  allegado  para  su  def  ensa  que  los  testigos  f  ueron  conspira- 
dos  y  conjurados  contra  £1  por  un  Juan  de  Avisa  y  otros  consortes 
suyos  para  lo  qual  nombro  testigos  y  allende  aquellos  pidio  que  tam- 
bien se  examinasen  los  nombrados  por  sus  hijos  y  que  yendo  a  entender 
uno  de  los  inquisidores  en  la  probanza  desta  conspiracion  recibio  en 
contradiccion  del  fiscal  testigos  nuevamento  nombrados  por  los  hijos 
&  yernos  del  preso  6  a  un  suegro  suyo  e  a  otros  que  continuamente 
con  las  armas  en  las  manos  han  andado  en  defension  del  dicho  Francisco 


APPENDIX  523 

Mainente,  y  que  en  el  examen  los  susodichos  no  fueron  preguntados  de 
deudos  amistad  ni  de  otras  circumstancias  necesarias  de  lugar  y  tiempo 
de  manera  que  por  esta  via  se  ha  embarazado  esta  causa  y  tornandose 
a  desdecir  algunos  de  los  testigos.  Porende  mandamos  que  el  fiscal 
haga  sus  pedimentos  cerca  desto  ante  los  inquisidores  y  que  ellos  6 
qualquiera  dellos  provean  lo  que  fuere  de  justicia. 

Item,  por  quanto  parece  que  los  reconciliados  traen  los  habitos  cubier- 
tos  por  los  ciudades  y  tierras  donde  moran,  los  inhabiles  per  condem- 
nacion  de  padres  y  de  abuelos  traen  armas,  seda,  oro,  plata  y  usan  de 
cosas  que  les  son  vedadas  y  prohibidas  y  que  esto  no  se  castiga  y  es  en 
mucho  deservicio  de  Dios  y  menosprecio  de  justicia  mandamos  que  el 
fiscal  haga  sus  pedimentos  sobre  esto  y  los  inquisidores  6  qualquiera 
dellos  lo  castiguen  y  provean  mediante  justicia. 

Item,  porque  parece  que  el  receptor  se  queja  que  el  inquisidor  Cervera 
en  la  visita  que  hizo  por  ese  reino  mando  acudir  con  los  aquileres  de  una 
casa  a  un  Nadal  Valaguer  contra  toda  justicia  y  razon,  la  qual  casa  con 
otras  bienes  diz  que  estaban  cedidos  y  traspasados  a  ese  santo  oficio 
por  alcances  que  se  ovieron  hecho  al  dicho  Nadal  de  haciendas  cobradas 
en  su  tiempo  y  del  receptor  Obregon,  mandamos  que  vos  los  inquisidores 
6  qualquiera  de  vos  hagais  brevemente  justicia. 

Item,  porque  parece  que  ha  habido  comunicacion  de  presos  unos  con 
otros  por  la  mala  guarda  de  las  carceles  y  desto  se  siguen  muchos 
inconvenientes  al  sancto  oficio,  mandamos  que  los  inquisidores  6 
qualquiera  de  vos  proveais  cerca  desto  de  remedio  convenible. 

Item,  por  quanto  parece  que  al  tiempo  de  la  conmocion  de  ese  reino 
muchos  de  los  reconciliados  por  ese  sancto  oficio  se  quitaron  los  habitos 
penitenciales  y  despues  aca  no  se  los  han  vnelto  los  quales  en  mucho 
deservicio  de  Dios  y  grande  dano  de  las  animas  de  los  dichos  reconcilia- 
dos, mandamos  que  vos  los  dichos  inquisidores  6  qualquiera  de  vos 
proveais  que  todos  los  dichos  habitos  se  vuelvan  a  los  dichos  recon- 
ciliados para  que  los  trayan  publicamente  y  cumplan  las  sentencias 
que  contra  ellos  fueron  dadas  mirando  mucho  que  esto  se  haga  en  tiempo 
y  de  manera  que  por  ello  no  se  pueda  seguir  escandalo  ni  inconveniente 
alguno,  que  despues  de  vueltos  se  usara  con  los  que  cumplieren  como 
deben  sus  penitencias  de  misericordia. 

Item,  por  quanto  parece  que  los  inquisidores  y  otros  oficiales  de  esa 
inquisicion  han  llevado  algunos  presentes  contra  la  instruccion  que 
esto  prohibe,  mandamos  que  de  aqui  adelante  se  guarde  la  dicha  instruc- 
cion como  en  ella  se  contiene  y  lo  que  se  ha  llevado  hasta  aqui  de  pre- 
sentes contra  la  dicha  instruccion  de  conf  esos  y  litigantes  se  ha  restituido 
a  las  partes  que  dieron  los  dichos  presentes. 

Item,  porque  somos  informado  que  el  inquisidor  Melchior  Cervera 
por  descargo  de  su  conciencia  dejo  en  su  ultimo  testamento  a  ese  santo 
oficio  docientos  ducados  de  oro,  y  es  cosa  justa  que  se  cobren,  mandamos 
que  el  receptor  de  los  bienes  confiscados  no  pague  a  el  heredero  del 


524  APPENDIX 

dicho  Melchior  Cervera  de  lo  que  se  le  debiere  de  su  salario  los  dichos 
docientos  ducados  y  si  todo  su  salario  fuese  pagado  se  cobren  por  el 
dicho  receptor  6  contador  de  los  bienes  del  dicho  inquisidor  Oervera. 

Por  ende  mandamos  a  vos  los  dichos  inquisidores  y  oficiales  que 
agora  sois  6  por  tiempo  fueredes  en  el  oficio  de  la  santa  inquisicion  del 
dicho  reino  de  Sicilia  que  veades  las  instrucciones  y  ordinaciones  y 
cosas  y  capitulos  susodichos  y  todas  las  otras  instrucciones  del  dicho 
sancto  oficio  y  cada  uno  de  vos  en  lo  que  toca  y  atane  las  guardeis  y 
cumplais  y  hagais  guardar  y  cumplir  en  todo  y  por  todo  segun  que  en 
ellas  se  contiene  y  contra  el  tenor  y  forma  de  lo  en  ellas  y  cada  una 
dellas  contenido  no  vayais  ni  paseis  ni  consintais  ir  ni  pasar  en  tiempo 
alguno  so  las  penas  en  los  dichos  capitulos  e"  instrucciones  contenidas 
sobre  todo  lo  qual  vos  encargamos  la  conciencia,  en  testimonio  de  lo  qual 
mandamos  hacer  la  presente  firmada  de  nuestro  nombre  refrendada  del 
secretario  y  sellada  con  el  sello  deste  sancto  oficio. 

Datum  en  la  villa  de  Madrid  a  xxxi  dias  del  mes  de  Enero  del  ano 
del  nascimiento  de  nuestro  sefior  mil  quinientos  y  veinte  y  cinco 

Archiepiscopus  Hispalensis. 

De  mandate  Rmi.  D.  Archiepiscopi  Hispalensis  inquisitoris  generalis 

Joannes  Garcia,  secretarius. 

Registrata  in  sancte  inquisitionis  quinto,  f°  civ. 


III. 

COMMISSION  FOR  THE  ARREST  OP  HERETICS,  ISSUED  BY  VICEROY 
RIBAGORZA,  JANUARY  14,  1509. 

(Chioccarello  MSS.,  Tom.  VIII). 
(See  p.  56). 

Joannes  de  Aragonia  Mag"  Viro,  U.  J.  D.  Antonio  de  Baldaxino  regio 
fideli  nobis  carissimo,  gratiam  regiam  et  bonam  voluntatem.  Perche 
secondo  avemo  inteso  ad  esto  si  commette  in  aliquibus  partibus  Apulise 
certa  eresia  che  lo  venerdi  Santo  gl'uomini  e  donne  di  questi  luoghi 
insieme  con  candele  accese  e  dapoi  di  certa  predica  estinguono  le  can- 
dele  e  gl'uomini  con  le  donne  usano  carnalmente  taliter  che  usano  li 
Padri  colle  figliuole  ed  altri  colle  sorelle,  e  questo  en  disservizio  di  nues- 
tro Sigre  Dio  e  contra  la  fede  nostra  Cattolica.  E  volendo  noi  estirpare 
et  radicitus  abolire  tal  eresia  e  cose  mal  fatte  e  nefande  ed  ancora  punire 
e  castigare  li  tali  eretici  delinquent!.  Pertanto  a  voi  della  fede,  probita, 
perizia  e  scienza  della  quale  molto  confidamo,  dicemo,  ordinamo  e 


APPENDIX  525 

comandamo  quod  prsesentibus  acceptis  personaliter  vi  debbiate  con- 
ferire  in  partibus  Apulise  vel  in  qualunque  citta,  Terra,  castello  e 
luoghi  del  presente  Regno,  tanto  demaniali  quanto  de  Baroni  ed  Eccle- 
siastiche  persone,  dove  parera  e  sara  bisogno,  e  pigliar  informazione 
esattamente  di  tutte  le  cose  predette,  e  quelli  trovarete  colpabili  pig- 
liarete  di  persona  e  conducerete  da  noi,  perche  vista  detta  informazione 
possano  quelli  punirsi  e  castigarsi  giusta  loro  demeriti,  e  se  vi  parer& 
dover  annotare  li  beni  di  tali  delinquenti,  lo  farete,  e  quelli  pro  tuitione 
Regiae  Curiae  ponerete  in  loco  tuto,  adeo  che  volendo  quelli  li  possiamo 
avere,  perche  noi  per  tenore  della  presente  circa  prsemissa  per  voi  agenda 
et  complenda  vi  commettemo  e  conferimo  voces  et  vices  Regias  atque 
nostras  plenumque  posse  et  locum  nostrum,  e  perche  meglio  possiate 
eseguire  questa  presente  nostra  commissione  ordinamo  e  comandamo 
a  tutti  e  singoli  Prencipi,  Duchi,  Marchesi,  Conti,  Baroni,  Louri  Regii  ed 
altri  offlciali  maggiori  e  minori  ed  altri  qual  siano  sudditi  della  Cattolica 
Maiesta  che  circa  Peseguire  per  voi  e  complire  delle  cose  predette  non 
vi  debbiano  ponere  ostaculo  ne  dare  impaccio  seu  impedimento  alcuno, 
immo  vi  dobbiano  assistere  e  dare  ogni  ausilio,  consilio,  aiuto  e  favore 
opportune,  sempre  che  da  voi  saranno  ricercati,  e  volemo  vi  debbiano 
provedere  di  stanza,  letto  e  strama  senza  pagamento  alcuno,  e  d'ogni 
altra  cosa  e  ragione  sotto  pena  della  Regia  disgrazia  e  di  docati  mille 
al  R°  fisco  applicandi.  Datum  in  Castro  novo  civitatis  Neapolis,  die 
14  Januarii  1509.  El  Gonde  Lugart6  General.  V4  Montaltus  R.,  V* 
de  Colle  R.,  Dominus  Locumt8  Gen11"  mandavit  mihi  Petro  Lazaro  de 
Exea.  In  Curiae  Locumtenentis  3°  Comitis  Ripacursiae  fol.  209  a  t°. 


IV. 

PROMISE  OF  PHILIP  II  TO  THE  CITY  OF  NAPLES  IN  1564. 

(Chioccarello  MSS.,  Tom.  VIII). 
(See  p.  87). 

Rdazione  fatta  dal  P.  D.  Paolo  d'Arezzo  alia  Citth  di  Napoli  nel  suo 

ritorno. 

Quel  che  S.  M.  nelP  espedirmi  da  lei  mi  comando  a  me  D.  Paolo 
d'Arezzo,  che  lo  dovessi  far  fede  alia  sua  Fedma  Citta  di  Napoli  della 
buona  volunta  sua  verso  della  Citta  e  di  tutto  quel  suo  Regno  di  Napoli 
6  come  tutti  Tama  grandemente  e  desidera  ogni  loro  sodisfazione  e  la 
M.  S.  &  pronta  farli  sempre  nuove  grazie  e  nuovi  beneficii  et  in  ogni 
occasione  dimostrar  1'amore  e  benignita  sua,  e  la  gratitudine  dell' 


526  APPENDIX 

animo  suo  per  la  fedelta  la  quale  sempre  hanno  usata  verso  la  M.  S. 
e  de  suoi  predecessor!  e  per  li  continui  e  grand!  servizii  tanto  in  guerra 
quanto  in  pace,  dell!  quali  S.  M.  ne  tiene  memoria,  aggradendoli  e 
tenendoli  in  quel  conto  che  si  deve.  E  per  quanto  al  particolare  delle 
grazie  che  si  hanno  a  S.  M.  domandate,  quel  che  ha  conosciuto  esser 
utile  benefizio  e  quiete  della  Citta  e  Regno  di  Napoli  di  liberarli  per 
sempre  dall'Inquisizione  ce  Fha  concesso  molto  liberamente  e  benig- 
namente,  sperando  che  si  portaranno  piamente  e  cristianamente  nelle 
cose  della  Religione  e  della  S.  Fede  Cattoa  e  cosi  1'esorta  tutti  ad  averne 
buona  cura  e  diligenza.  Ma  in  quanto  a  gli  altri  capi  perche  S.  M. 
non  vede  che  siano  in  beneficio  loro,  anzi  potriano  essere  a  loro  stessi 
dannosi  non  Tha  parso  poterli  concedere  in  buona  coscienza,  ne  pero 
1'exclude  del  tutto  ma  si  reserba  ed  avera  buona  e  piu  matura  considera- 
zione  e  provederli  piu  di  spazio.  Mi  commise  ancora  ch'Io  lo  riferissi 
come  desidera  venire  in  questa  citta  a  visitare  il  Regno  per  mostrare  a 
tutti  1'amore  e  buona  volonta  che  li  porta,  e  cosi  come  in  absenza  ha 
conosciuto  la  fedelta  ed  affezione  di  tutti  per  sua  maggior  consolazione 
e  contento  fruirla  con  la  presenza  e  dal  canto  suo  ancora  dar  tutta 
quella  sodizfazione  che  puo  a  cosi  fedeli  ed  amorevoli  vassalli,  il  che 
S.  M.  tiene  intenzione  di  farlo  colla  prima  occasione  che  dio  benedetto 
gli  dara. 

Questo  &  quel  tanto  che  S.  M.  mi  comand6  che  da  sua  parte  io  dovesse 
riferire  alia  Citta  in  testimonio  ed  esplicazione  della  benignita  ed  amor 
suo  verso  di  questa  Citta  e  Regno  di  Napoli  tutto  il  sopradetto  1'ho  visto 
con  gli  occhi  e  toccato  con  mano  esser  la  pura  verita. 


EL  REY. 

Por  quanto  haviendose  nos  suplicado  por  parte  de  la  nuestra  ciudad 
y  Regno  de  Napoles  fuesemos  servido  declarar  nuestra  intencion  cerca 
las  cosas  de  heresia  que  alii  succediere.  Por  ende  por  tenor  de  la  pre- 
sente  deximos  y  declaramos  no  haver  sido  ni  ser  de  nuestra  mente  6 
intencion  que  en  la  dicha  ciudad  y  Reyno  se  ponga  la  Inquisicion  en  la 
forma  de  Espana,  sino  que  se  proceda  por  la  via  ordinaria  como  esta 
aqui,  y  que  assi  se  observara  y  complira  con  efecto  en  lo  adelante,  sin 
que  en  ello  haya  falta,  en  testimonio  de  lo  qual  mandamos  dar  la  pre- 
sente  firmada  de  nuestra  mano  y  sellado  con  nuestro  sello  secreto. 
En  Madrid  &  diez  dias  de  Marzo  1565.  Yo  el  Rey.— V*  Figueroa  R8.— 
Vfc  Soto  R". — V1  Vargas  Secretarius. — Locus  Sigilli. — Declaracion  de 
que  no  se  pondra  en  la  Ciudad  y  Reyno  de  Napoles  la  Inquisicion  en  la 
forma  de  Espana. 

H  duplicate  di  questa  lettera  fti  rimessa  da  S.  M.  al  Duca  d'Alcala. 


APPENDIX  527 


V. 

APPLICATION  TO  THE  VICEROY  OF  NAPLES  FOR  EXTRADITION,  MARCH 

6,  1610. 

(Ohioccarello  MSS.,  Tom.  VIII). 
(See  p.  91). 

Iir°  ed  Eccmo  Signore. 

D.  Fabio  Orzolino  dice  a  V.  E.  come  si  e  necessario  far  notificare  una 
citazione  spedita  in  forma  Bullse  dal  Sw  Officio  contro  TAbbate  Angelo 
e  Carlo  della  Rocca.  Supplica  percio  V.  E.  per  il  Regio  suo  exequatur 
avendola  da  notificare  in  Regno  ut  Devotus  et  Reverendus  Regius 
cappelanus  major  videat  et  referat.  Constantius  Reg8.  Provisum 
per  S.  Exc*.  Neapoli  die  6  mensis  Martii  1610.  Vitalianus. 

Illmo  ed  Eccmo  Signore.  Per  parte  del  predetto  supplicante  mi  e 
stato  presentato  il  predetto  memoriale  con  regia  decretazione  di  V.  E. 
di  mia  commissione.  E  volendo  gFordini  delP  E.  V.  eseguire  e  dell' 
esposto  informarmi  ho  visto  una  provisione  spedita  da  Monsignore 
Crecenzo  Auditor  Generale  della  Rota  seu  Camera  Apostolica  nella 
quale  si  narra  che  dovendo  FAbbate  Angelo  e  Carlo  della  Rocca  di 
Traetto,  Diocesi  di  Gaeta  ad  esso  supplicante  docati  ottant'otto  in  virtti 
di  publico  istrumento  con  1'obligazione  camerale  ed.  essendo  per  detto 
debito  stati  per  cedoloni  declarati  per  publici  scomunicati  ed  avendono 
in  detta  scommunica  persistito  per  un  anno  e  piti  per  il  che  si  citano  ad 
personaliter  comparendum  in  detta  corte  Romana  ed  avanti  il  detto  Audi- 
tore  a  dire  la  causa  perche  non  si  devono  dichiarare  per  insordescenti, 
come  questo  ed  altro  appare  per  detta  provisione  spedita  in  Roma  per 
esecuzione  publica  della  quale  si  suplica  V.  E.  per  il  Regio  exequatur. 
Per  tanto  visto  e  considerato  il  tutto,  adhibito  in  cio  il  parere  del  m° 
U.  J.  D.  Gio.  Geronimo  Natale  Avvogado  Fiscale  del  R*  Patrimonio 
della  Regia  Camera  della  Summaria  mia  Auditore,  sono  di  voto  che 
FE.  V.  puo  restar  servita  per  esecuzione  della  detta  provisione  di 
concedere  ad  esso  supplicante  il  Regio  Exequatur  quo  ad  personas 
Ecclesiasticas  tantum.  E  questo  e  quanto  mi  occorre  riferire  a  V.  E. 
— Da  Casa  in  Napoli  a  di  7  Maggio  1610.  De  V.  E.  Servidor  y  Cap- 
pellan  D.  Gabriel  Sanchez  de  Luna. — Jo.  Hieronimus  Natalis. 


528  APPENDIX 


VI. 

KING  FERDINAND  LIMITS  SALARIES  BY  THE  CONFISCATIONS,  IN  THE 
INQUISITION  OF  SARDINIA. 

(Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisicion,  Libro  III,  fol.  308). 
(See  p.  114). 

EL  REY. 

Bernard!  Ros  nuestro  receptor  de  los  bienes  y  facienda  a  nuestra 
camara  e  fisco  confiscados  e  pertenecientes  e  que  se  confiscaran  por  el 
crimen  de  la  heregia  y  apostasia  en  el  Reino  de  Cerdena,  los  salaries 
que  en  cada  un  ano  habeis  de  pagar  al  inquisidor  y  otros  oficiales  y 
ministros  en  el  sancto  oficio  de  la  inquisicion  en  el  dicho  reino  son  los 
siguientes: 

Al  reverendo  obispo  del  Alguer  inquisidor     .     .  100  libras 
A  Micer  Pedro  de  Gontreras  abogado  en  el  crimen 

y  judicatura  de  bienes 40 

A  Luis  de  Torres  alguacil 30 

A  un  escribano  del  secreto  y  judicatura  de  bienes 

y  secrestos 30 

A  un  portero  e  nuncio 10 

A  vos  mesmo  por  receptor 100 

A  mossen  Alonso  de  Ximeno  procurador  fiscal  y 

canonigo  de  Callar 30 

Los  quales  salaries  ordinarios  facen  suma  en  universe  trescientas 
quarenta  libras  barcelonesas  las  quales  vos  mandamos  que  les  deis  por 
sus  tercios  del  ano  de  qualesquier  bienes  y  pecunias  que  sean  confiscados 
y  se  confiscaren  en  la  dicha  inquisicion  comenzando  a  contar  a  cada 
uno  de  ellas  dende  el  dia  que  comenzara  a  servir  sus  oficios  y  dende 
adelante  por  tanto  tiempo  como  cada  uno  servira  su  oficio  y  con  resti- 
tucion  de  sus  apocas  de  pago  tan  solamente,  mandamos  a  la  persona  que 
vuestras  cuentas  oira  y  examinara  que  los  dichos  salaries  segun  dicho 
es  vos  pasen  y  admitan  en  quenta  y  descargo  toda  duda  dificultad 
consulta  y  contradiccion  cessantes.  Queremos  empero  que  si  no 
hobiere  bienes  confiscados  parn  pagar  los  dichos  salaries  que  nos  ni 
nuestra  corte  no  seamos  tenido  ni  obligado  a  los  pagar  antes  queremos 
que  no  habiendo  cumplimiento  las  dichas  quantias  se  repartan  entre 
los  oficiales  a  sueldo  por  libra. 

Datum  en  Valladolid  a  once  de  Septiembre  de  mil  quinientos  catorce. 

Yo  el  Rey. — Calcena  Secretario. 


APPENDIX  529 


VII. 

PHILIP  II  TO  THE  DUKE  OF  SESSA. 

ABANDONING  THE  INTRODUCTION  OF  THE  SPANISH  INQUISITION  IN 

MILAN. 

(Archivio  Givico  Storico  a  S.  Oarpofaro  in  Milano.    Armario  A.  Filza 

vii,  N.  40). 
(See  p.   128). 

Illmo  Duque,  Primo  nuestro,  Governador  y  Capitan  General.  Hanse 
rrecivido  todas  vuestras  cartas  hasta  la  ultima  de  xxiii  del  pasado  y 
dexando  de  satisfaser  a  ellas  para  con  el  primero  esta  servira  solamente 
para  rresponder  a  lo  de  la  Inquisition,  por  ser  negocio  que  no  requiere 
delacion,  quedando  ese  estado  de  la  manera  que  nos  screvis  y  lo 
avemos  visto  por  las  cartas  que  nos  ha  mostrado  el  obispo  de  Guenca 
en  conformidad  de  las  vuestras.  La  dexceridad  y  buena  manera  con 
que  os  governastes  para  aquietar  los  animos  de  los  desestado  y  estorvar 
que  no  embiasen  aca  embaxadores  fue  como  convenia  y  se  deve 
esperar  de  vuestra  prudencia,  y  assi  conformandonos  con  vuestro 
parecer  damos  orden  al  electo  de  Salerno  que  no  parta  de  Trento  y  a 
Roma  que  cese  la  instancia  y  officio  que  se  hazia  con  su  Santidad  para 
que  mandase  despachar  la  facultad,  y  vos  con  el  buen  modo  que  lo 
aveis  comencado  hablareis  a  los  desse  estado  dandoles  a  entender  con 
las  mejores  palabras  que  vereis  convenir  que  nuestra  Intencion  nunca 
fu6  ni  es  de  hazer  novedad  en  la  forma  de  proceder  del  sancto  officio 
sino  solamente  en  la  persona,  para  que  con  mas  autoridad  y  teniendo 
mejor  de  comer  se  hiziese  lo  que  convenia  al  servicio  de  Dios  y  bien 
de  la  Religion  en  tiempos  tan  infectos  y  peligrosos  por  la  vezindad, 
y  que  assi  pueden  ser  ciertos  que  en  esto  no  avra  novedad,  quedando 
enteramente  confiado  que  ellos  por  su  parte  como  tan  catholicos  y 
zelosos  del  servicio  de  Dios  y  nuestro,  siguiendose  la  forma  y  horden 
que  hasta  aqui  se  ha  tenido  haran  lo  que  deven.  Y  todo  os  lo 
rremitionos  como  persona  que  estara  sobrel  negocio,  os  governeys  en 
esto  como  mas  vieredes  convenir  para  escusar  todo  genero  de  Incon- 
viniente  y  mala  satisfacion.  Y  conforme  a  ello  embiarcio  (sic)  luego  essa 
carta  al  electo  de  Salerno  y  esotra  despacho  a  Roma  dando  junta- 
mente  con  el  aviso  al  embaxador  de  lo  que  cerca  desto  se  hiziese  para 
que  sepa  como  se  avra  de  governar  con  su  Santidad. — De  Mon^on  a 
viii  de  Noviembre  de  M.  D.  Ixiii. 

El  Senado  nos  ha  scripto  una  carta  sobre  estos  negocios.  Dales  ese 
aviso  del  Recivo  y  de  lo  que  en  ello  se  provee. — Yo  el  Rey. 

J.  Vargas. 
34 


630  APPENDIX 

VIII. 

QUARANTINE  AGAINST  HERETICS. 

(MSS.  of  Ambrosian  Library,  H.  S.  VI,  29). 
(See  p.  131). 

DECRETI   BELLA    SACRA   CONGREGAZIONE   DEL    SANTO    OFFICIO    DI 

ROMA  CONTRO  GLI  HERETICI  CHE  VENGONO  IN 

MILANO  E  suo  STATO. 

Inquisitor!  Mediolani:  Ut  cum  solitis  conditionibus  practicatis  ante 
Bullam  Gregorii  XV  permittat  Rhetis  et  Helvetiis  per  aliquod  dies 
manere  Mediolani  occasione  mercaturse  et  non  aliter;  invigilet  tamen 
ne  aliquid  in  fidem  Catholicam  machinentur. — 19  Julii,  1625. 

Alios  tamen  Hsereticos  non  permittat  ibidem  manere,  datur  tamen 
ei  facultas  concedendi  Talibus  licentias  per  aliquod  breve  tempus  et 
certioret. — 24  Junii,  1627. 

Inquisitoribus  Mediolani  et  Gomi:  Non  inducant  gravamina  et 
novitates  contra  Helvetios  et  eorum  Confederates  Haereticos  Medio- 
lanum  accedentes,  sed  observant  capitulationes  antiquas. — 5  Augusti, 
1599. 

Inquisitori  Mediolani:  Curet  cum  participatione  Eminent™1  Archi- 
episcopi  cum  suavitate  et  paulatim  tollere  abusum  commercii  Merca- 
torum  Catholicorum  dictae  civitatis  cum  Haereticis  et  adhibeat  diligen- 
tiam  ne  denuo  hujusmodi  commercia  introducantur. — 10  Octobris, 
1629. 

Haeretici  in  Statu  Mediolani  non  admittantur  ab  Inquisitoribus 
nisi  sint  ex  Rhetis  vel  Helvetiis  qui  in  eo  habent  commercium  merca- 
turse vigore  Conventionum  inter  Regem  Hispaniarum  et  ipsos  factarum. 
Commercium  litterarum  inter  Catholicos  et  Hsereticos  non  permittant 
nisi  inter  Confederates  ratione  mercaturse.  Mercium  sarcinae,  vulgo 
Balle,  si  remanent  Mediolani  visitentur  ab  ipso  Inquisitore  an  adsint 
libri  Haeretici;  si  vero  aliunde  vehuntur  fiat  diligentia  in  loco  ad 
quern  ducuntur;  si  vero  sint  dolia  librorum  videatur  ipsorum  librorum 
lista,  quae  si  non  exhibeatur  non  permittantur  alio  duci  nisi  visis  libris 
et  se  intelligat  Inquisitor  Mediolani  cum  aliis  Inquisitoribus  civitatum 
ad  quas  deferuntur.— Inquisitori  Mediolani  3  Julii,  1593. 

Inquisitori  Mediolani  scriptum  fuit  ne  permittat  Ministros  et  Prse- 
dicantes  Hsereticos  accedere  in  hunc  statum,  sed  quod  alios  Haereticos 
Helvetios  qui  accedunt  illuc  pro  Commercio  observare  faciat  Capitula- 
tiones et  alia  ordinata  cum  declarationibus  et  moderationibus  ultimo 
eis  scriptis.— 3  Decembris,  1599. 


APPENDIX  531 

DECRETI  CONTRO  GL'  ERETICI  DIMORANTI  IN  VENEZIA  E  suo  STATO. 

Nuntio  Venetiarum  scriptum  fuit  die  duodecima  Januarii,  1591,  ut 
tractet  cum  Dominis  Venetis  quod  nullo  modo  admitti  debent  in 
eorum  Dominio  Hseretici  et  Apostatae  a  fide  etiam  conniventibus 
oculis. 

Nuntio  Venetiarum  scriptum  fuit  die  23  Februarii,  1591  circa  Hae- 
reticos  ultramontanos  commorantes  Venetiis  in  fundaco  Germanorum 
habitum  fuisse  sermonem  de  praedictis  cum  Sanctissimo  et  ita  concludit 
Epistola — 

E  perche  il  ritenere  ivi  i  nemici  della  Santa  Fede  ridonda  in  diser- 
vizio  di  Dio,  e  per  esser  quello  un  male  contagiosissimo,  bisogna  che 
almeno  in  progresso  di  tempo  causi  grand'  infezione  in  quell'  Anime : 
ed  il  Commercio  con  quella  nazione  si  puo  conservare  e  continuare  col 
mezzo  d'altri  mercanti  Catolici  e  confidenti  a  cotesta  Signoria,  la  San- 
tit&  Sua  ha  ordinato  che  V.  S.  sempre  le  verra  occasione,  procuri  colla 
sua  prudenza  e  destrezza  d'insinuare  tutto  cift  e  metterlo  in  considera- 
zione  al  Principe  e  a  quei  Signori  acciocche  si  pensi  di  provedervi,  e 
sua  Santita  ne  deve  parlare  coll'  Ambasciatore. 


IX. 

DECREE  OF  Pius  V,  JUNE  6,  1566. 

(Bulario  de  la  Orden  de  Santiago,  Libro  III,  fol.  91. — Archivo  historico 

nacional  de  Madrid). 

(See  p.  132). 

Die  Jovis  sexta  mensis  Junii,  1566,  Sanctissimus  in  Christo  pater 
D.  N.  D.  Pius  divina  providentia  Pius  Quintus,  in  Congregatione  officii 
Sanctse  Ro.  universalis  Inquisitionis,  in  throno  majestatis  suse  sedens, 
unacum  illustrissimis  et  reverendissimis  dominis  Dominis  Cardinalibus 
Inquisitoribus  Generalibus,  statuit,  decrevit,  ordinavit  et  mandavit 
ut  negotia  fidei  omnibus  et  singulis  aliis  praeferantur,  cum  fides  sit 
substantia  et  fundamentum  Christianae  religionis.  Idcireo  omnibus 
et  singulis  almae  Urbis  ejusque  districtus  Gubernatori,  Senatori, 
Vicario,  Cameras  Apostolic®  auditoribus  quibuscunque,  Legatis, 
Vicelegatis,  Gubernatoribus  Provinciarum  et  Terrarum  suae  Sanctitati 
et  Sanctse  Romanae  Ecclesiae  mediate  vel  immediate  subjectarum 
ac  eorum  locatenentibus,  officialibus,  barissellis  aliisque  ministris, 
necnon  aliis  locorum  ordinariis  caeterisque  magistratibus,  officialibus 


532  APPENDIX 

ac  cujusvis  conditionis  et  status  hominibus  in  omnibus  et  singulis  ter- 
ris,  oppidis,  civitatibus  ac  in  tota  Republica  Christiana  existentibus, 
sub  excommunicationis  latse  sententiae  ac  indignationis  suse  Sanctitatis 
aliisque  arbitrio  suse  Sanctitatis  ac  illustriss,  et  reverendiss.  D.  D. 
Cardinalium  Inquisitorum  Generalium  imponendis  et  exequendis 
poenis,  ut  eisdem  Cardinalibus  Inquisitoribus  hujusmodi  ac  eorum 
praeceptis  et  mandatis  in  quibuscunque  officium  sanctae  Inquisitionis 
hujusmodi  concementibus  pareant  et  obediant.  Reges  vero,  Duces, 
Comites,  Barones  et  quosvis  alios  Principes  saeculares  in  Dei  nomine 
rogavit  ut  eisdem  Cardinalibus  Inquisitoribus  eorumque  officialibus 
faveant  auxiliumque  praebeant,  a  suis  magnatibus  subditis  auxilium 
prseberi  faciant  in  negotiis  ad  dictum  officium  spectantibus,  necnon 
carceratos  quoscunque  pro  quibusvis  delictis  et  debitis  etiam  atrocibus, 
apud  dictum  Inquisitionis  officium  quomodolibet  delatos  vel  denun- 
ciatos,  suspensa  aliorum  criminum  inferiorum  cognitione,  ad  eosdem 
Cardinales  vel  Inquisitionis  carceres,  ibidemque  ad  criminis  haeresis 
totaliter  cognitionem  et  expeditionem  retinendos,  postea  ad  eosdem 
officiales  pro  aliorum  criminum  cognitione  remittendos,  sine  mora 
transmittant.  Instante  magnifico  Domino  Pedro  Belo  procuratore 
fiscali  officii  Sanctae  Romanae  Universalis  Inquisitionis. 


X. 

S.   @ARLO   BORROMEO'S  MEMORANDA   FOR  A   VISITATION. 

(MSS.  of  the  Ambrosian  Library,  Tomo  V,  F.  41  ed  177,  Parte  Inferiors, 

No.  76). 
(See  p.   133). 

RlCORDO   DI   ALCUNE   COSE   DELLE  QUALI   PRINCIPALMENTE  S*A  DA  FAR 
DILIGENTE   INQUISITIONE 

Se  nella  patria  sono  heretici,  sospetti  di  heresia,  ricettatori  et  fautori 
di  heretici,  scandalosi  nel  parlare  et  chi  abusa  le  parole  della  Scrittura. 

Se  si  fanno  conventicole  6  ridotti  di  laici  ne  quali  si  parli  delle  cose 
della  fede;  se  predichi  e  si  disputi  senza  autorita,  di  superiori  Eccle- 
siastici. 

Se  vi  £  comertio  di  heretici  d  sospetti  et  come  si  avertisse  &  quelle 
famiglie  che  praticano  ne  i  paesi  heretici  6  per  mercantia  6  altro 
pretesto. 

Se  mandano  i  figlioli  in  Germania  6  in  altra  provincia  nelle  parti 
sospette  per  imperar  la  lingua  6  trafico  6  per  viver  in  Corti  di  Principi. 


APPENDIX  533 

Di  libri  prohibit!  6  scandalosi  et  che  cura  si  tiene  nel  portare  i  libri 
nella  patria  et  se  s'avertischi  bene  a  mercanti  et  a  chi  pratica  ne  paesi 
sospetti ;  se  portano  libri  heretici  6  sospetti  dell'  Inquisitione  nelle  librarie. 

Come  si  governa  Poffitio  della  Sta  Inquisitione  cioe  di  Vescovi  et 
Inquisitori  in  quelle  parti  circa  il  tener  ben  purgato  il  paese  da  quella 
peste. 

Se  hanno  qualche  impedimento  nell'offitio. 

Se  hanno  il  debito  aiuto  circa  la  essecutione  da  principi  secolari, 
cosi  gFInquisitori  come  li  Vescovi  nell'officio  loro. 

Di  predicated,  che  diligentia  s'usi,  accio  catholicamente  predichino 
et  che  non  disputino  le  cose  controverse  ma  solamente  in  ogni  occasione 
stabilischino  la  parte  catholica,  dichiarando  bene  et  chiaramente  il 
senso  delle  Scritture,  et  lasciando  da  parte  li  fondamenti  delli  heretici. 

De  Maestri  di  scuola  come  insegnano  et  che  libri  legono. 

Se  secondo  il  decreto  del  Consiglio  Tridentino  i  Curati  ammaestrano 
fanciulli  nella  dottrina  Christiana. 

Se  vi  sono  superstition!,  divination!  et  incanti  et  altre  cose  tali  che 
vanno  appresso  all'heresie  et  molte  volte  sapiunt  etiam  manifestam 
heresim. 

Se  con  quel  honore  che  si  deve  sono  tenute  le  sante  relique. 
*********** 

Se  vi  sono  pubblici  peccatori,  sprezzatori  di  commandamenti  de  la 
Chiesa,  delle  ceremonie,  riti  et  tradition!  et  contemptori  delle  censure 
et  giuditii  Ecclesiastic!. 

*********** 

Delli  hebrei,  se  portano  il  segno,  se  conversano  con  Christian!  con 
pericolo  di  corrutela  dei  costumi  Christiani. 


534  APPENDIX 


XL 

EXTRACT  FROM  EDICT  OF  NOVEMBER  10,  1571, 

ISSUED  BY  THE  INQUISITION  OF  MEXICO  TO  THE  POPULATION  OF  NEW 
SPAIN  EMBODYING  THE  OATH  OF  OBEDIENCE. 

(From  the  MSS.  of  General  Don  Vicente  Riva  Palacio). 
(See  p.  203). 

*  *  *  Mandamos  dar  y  dimos  la  presente  por  la  cual  vos  ecshorta- 
mos,  amonestamos  y  mandamos  en  virtud  de  santa  obediencia  y  so  pena 
de  excomunion  mayor,  que  del  dia  que  esta  nuestra  carta  fuere  leida 
y  notificada  6  de  ella  supieredes  en  cualquier  manera  en  adelante  vos 
los  susodichos  y  cada  uno  de  vos  como  fieles  y  catolicos  cristianos, 
celadores  de  nuestra  santa  fe*,  verdaderos  miembros  de  la  Yglesia 
Catolica  cada  y  cuando  y  en  cualquier  lugar  que  os  halldredes  en  cuanto 
en  vos  fuere  favorecereis  al  dicho  Santo  Oficio,  Oficiales  y  ministros  de 
61,  dandoles  todo  el  favor  y  ayuda  que  os  pidieren,  y  que  no  ayudareis 
ni  favorecereis  a  los  hereges  enemigos  de  nuestra  santa  fe  catolica, 
antes  como  d  lobos  y  perros  rabiosos  inficionadores  de  las  animas  cris- 
tianas  y  destruidores  de  la  esposa  divina  del  Sefior  que  es  la  Yglesia 
catolica,  los  perseguireis  manifestandolos  y  no  los  encubrireis,  y  si  lo 
contrario  hicieredes,  lo  que  Dios  no  quiera  ni  permita,  incurrais  y 
caigais  en  la  ira  e  indignacion  de  Dios  todo  poderoso  y  de  la  Virgen 
Santa  Maria  su  madre,  y  de  los  bienaventurados  apostolos  S.  Pedro 
y  S.  Pablo  y  de  todos  los  santos  de  la  corte  celestial,  y  venga  sobre 
los  inobedientes  d  esto  las  plagas  y  maldiciones  que  vinieron  y  descen- 
dieron  sobre  el  Rey  Faraon  y  los  suyos  por  que  resistieron  d  los  man- 
damientos  de  Dios  y  la  destruccion  que  vino  sobre  los  de  Sodoma  y 
Gomorra  que  fueron  abrasados,  y  la  que  vino  sobre  Coreb,  Datan  y 
Aviron  que  sorbio  la  tierra  vivos  por  su  inobediencia,  y  siempre  esten 
endurecidos  y  en  pecado  y  el  diablo  este  d  su  mano  derecha  y  su  oracion 
sia  siempre  en  pecado  delante  el  acatamiento  de  Dios,  sus  dias  sean 
pocos  y  su  nombre  y  memoria  se  pierda  en  la  tierra  y  sean  arrojados 
de  sus  moradas  en  manos  de  sus  enemigos  y  cuando  sean  juzgados 
salgan  condenados  del  juicio  divino  con  lucifer  y  Judas  el  traidor  y 
sus  hijos,  queden  huerfanos  y  mendicantes  y  no  hallen  quien  bien  les 
haga,  y  allende  las  otras  penas  y  censuras  en  derechos  establecidas 
contra  los  tales  inobedientes  al  Santo  Oficio  y  a"  los  mandamientos 
apost61icos  caegan  6  incurran  en  pena  de  escomunion  mayor  que  nos 
por  tales  los  declaramos  en  estos  escriptos  y  por  ellos  y  para  mayor 
vigor  y  fuerza  de  lo  susodicho  mandamos  que  todas  las  personas  que 
presentes  estais  de  qualquier  estado  y  condicion  que  sean  alzeis  las 
manos  y  jureis  d  Dios  y  d  Santa  Maria  y  d  la  serial  de  la  Cruz  y  d  las 


APPENDIX  535 

palabras  de  los  cuatro  santos  evangelios  que  ante  vuestros  ojos  teneis 
que  de  aqui  adelante  como  verdaderos  catolicos  y  fieles  cristianos  y 
hijos  de  obediencia  sereis  en  favor  ayuda  y  defensa  de  la  santa  fe" 
de  nuestro  S.  Jesucristo  y  de  su  ley  evangelica  que  tiene,  predica, 
sigue  y  ensefia  la  S.  Madre  Yglesia  Catolica  Romana  y  de  la  S.  Inquisi- 
cion,  Oficiales  y  ministros  de  ella  en  cuanto  en  vos  fuere  con  todas 
vuestras  fuerzas  y  posibilidades  sin  impedirles  ni  embargarles  publica 
ni  secretamente,  directe  ni  indirecte  ni  por  cualquier  exquisito  color 
por  vos  ni  por  otra  persona  en  cosa  alguna  tocante  al  dicho  S.  Oficio 
y  ejecucion  de  41  y  que  no  favorecereis  a  los  herejes,  infamados  y  sos- 
pechosos  del  crimen  de  herejia  y  apostasia,  ni  d  sus  creyentes,  favorece- 
dores,  receptadores  ni  defensores  de  ellos  ni  a"  los  perturbadores  ni 
impedidores  del  dicho  Santo  Oficio  y  de  su  libre  y  recto  ejercicio,  antes 
sereis  en  los  perseguir,  acusar,  y  denunciar  a  la  S.  Madre  Yglesia  y 
a  nos  los  Ynquisidores  y  d  nuestros  sucesores  como  d  sus  ministros  a 
quien  por  su  Santidad  y  Sede  Apostolica  esta  reservado  el  conocimiento 
de  las  tales  causas  y  que  no  lo  encubrireis  recibireis  ni  admitireis  entre 
vosotros  ni  en  vuestra  familia,  compafiia  servicio  ni  consejo,  antes 
luego  que  de  ello  algo  supieredes  lo  direis  y  si  por  ventura  alguno  de  vos 
por  ignorancia  hiciere  lo  contrario  cada  y  cuando  que  £  vuestra  noticia 
viniere  ser  las  tales  personas  de  la  condicion  susodicha  luego  los  repele- 
reis  y  alanzareis  de  vos  y  de  cada  uno  de  vos  y  nos  dareis  de  ellos  noticia 
y  que  para  ejecucion  y  cumplimiento  de  lo  susodicho  y  de  cada  una  cosa 
y  parte  de  ello  dareis  todo  el  favor  y  ayuda  que  os  pidieren  y  fuere 
menester  y  cumplireis  todo  lo  demas  que  en  esta  nuestra  carta  va  dicho 
y  declarado.  Digan  todos  ansi  lo  prometemos  y  juramos.  Si  ansi 
lo  hicierdes  Dios  nuestro  S.  Jesucristo  cuja  es  esta  causa  os  ayude 
en  esto  mundo  en  el  cuerpo  y  en  el  otro  en  la  alma  donde  mas  habreis 
de  durar,  y  si  lo  contrario  hicieredes,  lo  que  Dios  no  quiera,  el  os  lo 
demande  mal  y  caramente  como  a"  reveldes  que  £  sabiendas  juran  su 
santo  nombre  en  vano.  Digan  todos  amen.  En  testimonio  de  lo  cual 
mandamos  dar  y  dimos  la  presente  firmada  de  nuestro  nombre,  sellada 
con  el  sello  del  dicho  Santo  Oficio  y  refrendada  por  el  Secretario  de 
41.  En  la  Cuidad  de  Mexico,  10  dias  del  mes  de  Noviembre  de  1571. 
El  Doctor  Moya  de  Contreras.  Por  mandado  del  S.  Inquisidor,  Pedro 
de  los  Rios,  Secretario. 


536  APPENDIX 


XII. 

CEDULA  OF  PHILIP  II,  AUGUST  16,  1570,  REGULATING  THE  PRIVILEGES 
OF  FAMILIARS  IN  NEW  SPAIN. 

(Biblioteca  National  de  Madrid,  Section  de  MSS.  X,  159,  fol.  240). 

(See  p.  247). 

EL  RET,  Nuestro  Virrey  y  Capitan  General  de  la  Nueva  Espana  y 
Presidente  de  la  Nuestra  Audiencia  Real  que  reside  en  la  Ciudad  de 
Mexico,  Oidores  de  la  dicha  Audiencia,  Presidente  y  Oidores  de  la 
Nuestra  Audiencia  Real  que  reside  en  la  Ciudad  de  Santiago  de  la 
Provincia  de  Guatimala,  e  a  los  Nuestros  Oydores,  Alcaldes  Mayores  de 
la  Nuestra  Audiencia  Real  de  la  Nueva  Galicia  e  qualesquier  Nuestros 
Governadores,  Corregidores  y  Alcaldes  mayores  e  a  otras  justicias  de 
todas  las  Ciudades,  Villas  y  lugares  de  las  Provincias  de  Nueva  Espana, 
la  Provincia  de  Nicaragua,  asi  de  los  Espanoles  como  de  los  Indios 
Naturales,  que  al  presente  sois  y  por  tiempo  fueren,  y  a  cada  uno  de  vos 
a  quien  la  presente  6  su  traslado  autentico  fuere  mostrado  y  lo  en  ello 
contenido  toca  6  pudiere  tocar  en  qualquiera  manera,  Salud  y  dileccion : 
Sabed  que  el  Reverendisimo  in  Christo  Padre  Cardenal  de  Siguenza, 
Presidente  del  Nuestro  Consejo  e  Inquisidor  General  Apostolico  en 
Nuestros  Reynos  y  Senorios  con  acuerdo  de  los  del  Nuestro  Consejo 
de  la  General  Inquisicion  y  consultado  con  Nos,  entendiendo  ser  muy 
necesario  y  conveniente  para  el  aumento  de  Nuestra  Santa  Fe*  y  su 
conservation,  poner  y  asentar  en  esas  dichas  Provincias  el  Santo  Oficio 
de  la  Inquisicion  lo  ha  ordenado  y  proveido  asi;  y  porque  demas  de  los 
Inquisidores  y  Oficiales  con  su  titulo  y  provision  que  ban  de  residir 
y  asistir  en  el  dicho  Santo  Oficio  es  necesario  que  haya  familiares 
como  los  ay  en  las  otras  Inquisiciones  de  estos  Reynos  de  Castilla  avien- 
dose  platicado  sobre  el  numero  de  ellos  y  ansi  mismo  de  los  privilegios 
y  exempciones  que  deven  y  ban  de  gozar,  consultado  conmigo  fue 
acordado  que  por  ahora  y  hasta  que  otra  cosa  se  provea,  aya  en  la  dicha 
Ciudad  de  Mexico,  donde  ha  de  residir  y  tener  su  asiento  el  dicho  Santo 
Oficio,  doze  familiares,  y  en  las  Cabezas  de  Arzobispados  y  Obispados 
en  cada  una  de  las  Ciudades  dellos  quatro  familiares  y  en  las  demas 
Ciudades,  Villas  y  Lugares  de  Espanoles  del  distrito  de  la  dicha  Inquisi- 
cion, un  familiar,  y  que  los  que  hubieren  de  ser  proveidos  por  tales 
familiares  scan  hombres  pacificos  y  quales  conviene  para  ministerio 
de  dicho  Oficio  tan  santo,  y  que  los  dichos  familiares  gozen  de  los 
privilegios  de  que  gozan  los  familiares  del  Reino  de  Castilla,  y  que 
cerca  del  privilegio  del  fuero,  en  las  causas  criminales  sean  sus  Juezes 
los  Inquisidores  quando  los  dichos  Familiares  sean  Reos,  excepto  el 
Grimen  lese  maiestatis  humane  y  en  el  Crimen  nefando  contra  natura,  y 


APPENDIX  537 

en  el  Crimen  de  levantamiento  o  comocion  del  Pueblo,  y  en  el  Crimen 
de  Cartas  de  seguros  nuestras,  e*  de  Revelion  e*  inobediencia  a  Nuestros 
Mandamientos  Reales,  y  en  caso  de  aleve  6  de  fuerza  de  Muger  6  robo 
della,  6  de  robador  publico,  6  de  quebrantador  de  casa  6  de  Iglesia  6 
Monasterio,  6  de  quema  de  Campo  6  de  casa  con  dolo,  y  en  otros  delitos 
mayores  que  estos.  Y  tener  resistencia  6  desacato  calificado  contra 
Nuestras  Justicias  Reales,  porque  el  conocimiento  destos  ni  de  las  causas 
Criminales  en  que  fueren  actores  los  dichos  familiares,  ni  en  las  Civiles 
en  que  fueren  actores  6  Reos  no  se  ban  de  entremeter  los  dichos  Inquisi- 
dores  ni  tener  Jurisdiccion  alguna  sobre  los  dichos  familiares,  sino  que 
la  Jurisdiccion  en  los  dichos  casos  queda  en  los  Juezes  seglares.  Item 
que  los  que  tubieren  oficios  Reales  publicos  de  los  pueblos  6  otros 
cargos  seglares,  y  delinquieren  in  cosas  tocantes  a  los  dichos  Oficios 
y  cargos  sean  juzgados  en  los  dichos  delitos  por  las  nuestras  Justicias 
Seglares,  pero  en  todas  las  otras  causas  Criminales  en  que  los  dichos 
Familiares  fueren  Reos  que  no  sean  de  los  dichos  delitos  y  casos  desuso 
exceptuados  quede  £  los  Inquisidores  sobre  los  dichos  Familiares  la 
Jurisdiccion  Criminal  para  que  libremente  procedan  contra  ellos  y 
determinen  sus  causas  como  Juezes,  que  para  ello  tienen  Nuestra 
Jurisdiccion  para  agora  y  adelante,  y  en  los  dichos  casos  en  que  los 
Inquisidores  han  de  proceder  pueda  el  Juez  Seglar  prender  al  Familiar 
delinquente  con  que  luego  le  remita  d  los  dichos  Inquisidores  que  del 
delito  hubieren  de  conocer,  con  la  Informacion  que  hubiere  tornado, 
lo  qual  se  haga  a*  costa  del  delinquente.  Item,  que  cada  y  quando  que 
algun  familiar  hubiere  delinquido  fuera  de  la  dicha  Ciudad  de  Mexico, 
donde  como  esta  dicho  ha  de  residir  el  Santo  Oficio  y  fuese  sentenciado 
por  los  Inquisidores,  no  pueda  volver  al  lugar  donde  delinquio  sin 
llevar  testimonio  de  la  sentencia  que  en  su  causa  se  dio  y  le  presente 
ante  la  Justicia  del  lugar  y  la  informacion  del  cumplimiento  della, 
y  para  que  no  se  exceda  del  dicho  numero  de  Familiares  que  conforme 
a"  lo  que  declarado  esta  desuso  ha  de  haver,  los  dichos  Inquisidores 
guardaran  lo  que  circa  desto  el  dicho  Inquisidor  General  y  Consejo 
les  han  ordenado  por  sus  instrucciones,  y  los  dichos  Inquisidores  ternan 
cuidado  que  en  el  dicho  su  distrito  se  de  al  regimiento  copia  del  numero 
de  los  Familiares  que  en  cada  una  de  las  dichas  Ciudades,  Villas  y 
Lugares  de  el  a"  de  haver  para  que  los  Governadores,  Corregidores  y 
las  otras  Justicias  y  regimientos  lo  entiendan  y  puedan  saber  y  reclamar 
quando  los  Inquisidores  excedieren  del  numero:  y  que  asi  mesmo 
se  de  la  lista  de  los  Familiares  que  en  qualquier  Gobernacion  y  Corregi- 
miento  se  proveen  para  que  los  unos  y  los  otros  sepan  como  aquellos 
y  no  otros  son  los  que  han  de  tener  por  familiares,  y  que  al  tiempo  que 
en  lugar  de  aquellos  familiares  se  proveyere  otro  los  Inquisidores  lo 
hagan  saber  al  dicho  Gobernador,  Corregidor  6  Justicia  seglar  en  cuyo 
distrito  se  proveiere  para  que  entienda  que  aquel  ha  de  tener  por 
familiar  y  no  d  otro  en  cuyo  lugar  se  proveyere  y  para  que  si  se  supiere 


638  APPENDIX 

que  no  concurren  en  el  tal  proveido  las  dichas  calidades  puede  adver- 
tir  dello  d  los  dichos  Inquisidores  y  si  fuere  necesario  al  dicho  Inquisidor 
General  y  Consejo  para  que  lo  provean.  For  ende  yo  os  mando  que 
guardeis  y  hagais  guardar  y  cumplir  lo  suso  dicho  en  todo  y  por  todo  y 
que  contra  el  tenor  y  forma  dello  no  vayais,  no  paseis  ni  consentais  ir 
ni  pasar  por  ninguna  causa,  forma,  6  razon  que  aya,  y  que  cada  uno  de 
vos  Juzgue  y  conosca  en  los  casos  que  os  quedan  reservados  y  en  los 
otros  no  os  entremetais,  que  cese  toda  competencia  de  Jurisdiccion 
porque  asi  conviene  al  servicio  de  Dios  Nuestro  Sefior  y  buena  adminis- 
tracion  de  Justicia  y  esta  mi  voluntad,  y  de  lo  contrario  nos  tendriamos 
por  deservidos.  Fecha  en  Madrid,  a  16  dias  de  el  mes  de  Agosto  de 
1570  aiios.— Yo  el  Key. 
Por  mandado  de  su  Magestad,  Geronimo  Zurita. 


XIII. 
SENTENCE  IN  CAMARA'S  PROSECUTION  OF  THE  INQUISITORS  ESTRADA 

AND    HlGUERA. 

(MSS.  of  David  Fergusson  Esqr.). 
(See  p.  263). 

Ffallamos,  attentos  los  autos  y  meritos  de  esta  causa  y  lo  demas 
que  ver  combine  que  devemos  declarar  y  declaramos  haver  havido  y 
haver  lugar  dicha  querella  y  haverla  probado  el  dicho  Canonigo  Doctor 
Don  Juan  de  la  Camara  vien  y  cumplidamente  segun  le  probar  le 
combino  damosla  y  pronunciamosla  por  bien  probada,  restituyendole 
en  su  antigua  opinion  y  credito  conformandonos  en  todo  y  por  todo  con 
la  sentencia  difinitiba  dada  y  pronunciada  a  su  favor  en  el  quaderno 
segundo  de  estos  auttos  por  dicho  Sr  Inqr  Don  Bernave  de  la  Higuera 
y  Amarilla.  Y  que  dichos  Senores  Inquisidores  Dr  Don  Fran00  de 
Estrada  y  Escobedo  y  Lizdo  Don  Bernave  de  la  Higuera  y  Amarilla 
no  an  probado  cossa  alguna  que  les  pueda  relebar  de  culpa  grave.  En 
cuia  consecuencia  devemos  de  declarar  y  declaramos  havir  cometido 
dichos  Senores  Inqres  grave  culpa  en  dicha  prision,  secuestro  y  circun- 
stancias  de  lo  uno  y  otro  cuia  punicion  se  reserva  para  la  determinacion 
de  la  visita  pressente  y  cargos  de  ella.  Y  por  lo  que  toca  d  la  interesse 
de  la  parte  querellante  devemos  de  condenar  y  condenamos  d,  dichos 
Srei  Inqr"  y  a"  cada  uno  in  solidum  mancomunados  en  dos  mill  pesos  de 
d  ocho  reales  castellanos  que  den  y  paguen  al  dicho  Canonigo  Don  Juan 
de  la  Camara,  d  el  qual  vuelva  luego  Don  Juan  Gonzalez  de  Castro 
vezino  a"  el  parezer  de  esta  ziudad  depositorio  secuestrador  que  parece 


APPENDIX  539 

haver  sido  de  los  bienes  de  dicho  Canonigo  todos  dichos  vienes  sin 
faltar  cosa  alguna  segun  el  imbentario  que  dellos  se  hizo,  pena  de  apre- 
mio,  y  casso  que  dicho  depositario  secuestrador  deje  de  restituir  dichos 
bienes  6  parte  de  ellos  6  algunos  otros  no  se  ayan  depositario  en  el  y 
no  conste  haverse  buelto  a  dicho  Canonigo  todos  los  buelban  y  resti- 
tuyan  dichos  Sefiores  Inquisidores  luego  sin  dilacion  alguna,  pena  de  mil 
pesos  de  dicha  ley,  en  que  assimismo  les  condenamos  manconumados, 
y  assimismo  con  la  misma  calidad  de  mancomunidad  les  condenamos 
en  las  costas  de  este  caussa  cuia  thassacion  en  nos  reserbamos.  Y 
por  esta  nuestra  sentencia  difinitiba  juzgando  assi  prommciamos 
y  mandamos  en  estos  scriptos  y  por  ellos. 

Dr  D.  P°  Medina  Rico. 


XIV. 

INQUISITORIAL  EDICT  AGAINST  HIDALGO.    MEXICO,  JANUARY  26,  1817. 

(From  an  original  in  my  possession). 
(See  pp.  275,  281). 

NOS  LOS  INQUISIDORES  APOSTOLICOS,  CONTRA  LA  HE- 
retica  Pravedad,  y  Apostasia  en  la  Ciudad  de  Mexico,  Estados, 
y  Provincias  de  esta  Nueva  Espana,  Guatemala,  Nicaragua,  Islas 
Filipinas,  sus  Distritos,  y  Jurisdicciones,  por  Autoridad  Apostolica, 
Real,  y  Ordinaria,  &c. 

A  todas,  y  qualesquiera  personas  de  qualquier  Estado,  grado,  y 
condicion,  preeminencia,  6  dignidad  que  sean,  exentos,  6  no  exentos, 
vecinos,  y  moradores,  estantes,  y  habitantes  en  las  Ciudades,  Villas, 
y  Lugares  de  este  nuestro  distrito,  y  a"  cada  uno  de  Vos,  Salud  en  nues- 
tro  Seiior  Jesucristo,  que  es  verdadera  salud,  y  d  los  nuestros  manda- 
mientos  firmemente  obedecer,  y  cumplir. 

SABED:  Que  ha  llegado  a  nuestras  manos  una  Proclama  del  rebelde 
Cura  de  Dolores,  que  se  titular  "Manifiesto,  que  el  Sefior  Don  Miguel 
,,Hidalgo,  y  Costilla::::,,  haze  al  Pueblo,  y  empieza:  "Me  veo  en  la 
,,triste  necesidad  de  satisfacer  a"  las  gentes;  y  acaba,  sobre  este  basto 
,,Continente.,,  Sin  lugar  de  impresion;  pero  sin  duda  la  imprimio 
en  Guadalaxara,  y  la  publico  manuscrita  en  Valladolid  en  todas  las 
Iglesias,  y  Conventos,  aun  de  Monjas,  despues  de  la  derrota,  que  sufri6 
por  las  armas  del  Rey  en  Aculco.  En  ella  vuelve  a"  cubrirse  con  el 
velo  de  la  vil  hipocresia,  protestando,  que  jama's  se  ha  apartado  de  la 


540  APPENDIX 

fe  Cat61ica,  y  pone  por  testigos  £  sus  Feligreses  de  Dolores,  y  San 
Felipe,  y  al  Exe*rcito,  que  comanda:  testigos  que  para  el  Pueblo  fiel, 
deben  hacer  la  misma  fe",  que  los  ciegos  citados  para  juzgar  de  los 
colores  "<iPero  para  quo*,  testigos,  prosigue  en  su  capciosa  Proclama, 
,,sobre  un  hecho,  e  imputacion,  que  ella  misma  manifiesta  su  falsedad? 
,,Se  me  acusa,  de  que  niego  el  infierno,  y  de  que  asiento,  que  algun 
,,Pontifice  de  los  Oanonizados  estd  en  este  lugar;  icomo  se  puede 
,,concordar,  que  un  Pontifice  este"  en  el  infierno,  y  negar  al  mismo 
,,tiempo  su  exlstencia?  Se  me  imputa,  que  sigo  los  perversos  Dogmas 
,,de  Lutero,  al  mismo  tiempo,  que  se  me  acusa,  que  niego  la  autentici- 
,,dad  de  los  Santos  Libros:  iSi  Lutero  deduce  sus  errores  de  estos 
,,mismos  Libros,  que  cree  inspirados  por  Dios,  como  he  de  ser  Luterano 
,,si  niego  la  autenticidad  de  estos  Libros?  ^Os  persuadiriais,  Ame'ri- 
,,canos,  que  un  Tribunal  tan  respetable,  y  cuyo  institute  es  el  mas 
,,Santo,  se  dexase  arrastrar  del  amor  al  Paisanage,  hasta  prostituir 
,,su  honor,  y  reputacion?,,  Mucho  le  escuece  a"  este  impio,  que  el 
Santo  Oficio  le  haya  manifestado  en  su  propia  figura  a  todo  el  Reyno, 
que  por  su  fidelidad,  y  catolicismo  llena  de  maldiciones  a  un  monstruo, 
que  abrigaba  sin  conocerle :  pero  quando  copia  para  instruccion  publica 
sus  errores,  no  omite  la  contradiccion  manifiesta  entre  ellos  mismos; 
porque  este  es  el  caracter,  y  propiedad  de  todos  los  hereges,  mientras 
no  bajan  a  el  ultimo  grado  en  la  escala  del  precipicio,  que  es  el  Ateismo, 
y  Materialismo,  como  le  ha  sucedido  a  6ste  impio ;  y  asi  la  contradiccion 
sera  suya,  y  respectiva  a  aquellos  tiempos,  en  que  fue  Luterano,  com- 
parados,  6  contrahidos  con  los  de  su  decidido  Ateismo,  y  Materialismo, 
como  se  manifestara  en  la  lectura  publica  de  su  causa  fenecidos  los 
terminos,  que  deben  seguirse  para  condenarle  en  rebeldia.  Satis- 
faccion,  que  no  dd  este  Tribunal  a  su  Manifiesto  por  que  la  merezca, 
smo  para  que  este  sofisma  no  alucine  d,  los  incautos,  y  vuelvan  sobre 
si  los  que  hayan  llegado  a  debilitar  su  opinion  en  favor  del  Santo 
Oficio,  persuadiendose  a  que  es  capaz  este  antemural  de  la  Religion, 
y  del  Estado  de  valerse  de  la  impostura,  como  quiere  persuadir  este 
Hipocrita,  para  degradar  su  opinion,  y  quitar  por  este  medio,  indigno 
de  nuestra  probidad  y  caracter  Sacerdotal,  la  energia  d  su  voz  rebelde, 
y  sediciosa,  y  para  que  conozcan  de  una  vez,  y  teman  todos  los  habitan- 
tes  de  este  Reyno  la  justicia  de  Dios  por  los  pecados  piiblicos,  empezada 
d  manifestar  en  este  azote,  que  han  sufrido  las  Provincias,  que  este 
Ate*o  cruel,  y  deshonesto  ha  infestado  con  sus  consejos,  alucinando 
&  tantos  miserables,  que  ha  hecho  victimas  del  proyecto  de  trastonar 
el  Trono,  y  la  Religion,  y  declarandose  el  mas  feroz  enemigo  de  los 
que  llama  sus  conciudadanos;  pues  parece  que  no  quiere  mas  vidas 
que  la  suya  poniendola  en  salvo  con  la  fuga,  y  mirando  con  frialdad 
inaudita  la  mortandad  de  millares  de  infelices  en  las  Graces,  en  Aculco, 
Guanaxuato,  Zamora,  y  Puente  de  Calderon.  Obstinacion  caracteris- 
tica  de  un  Ate*o,  que  no  conoce,  que  el  poder  de  Dios  ha  roto  su  arco 


APPENDIX  541 

tantas  veces  con  una  especie  de  prodigio  visible  respecto  de  los  pocos 
fieles,  que  ban  perecido. 

Son  igualmente  sediciosas  y  sanguinarias  dos  proclamas  manu- 
scritas;  la  una  empieza  Hemos  llegado  a  la  epoca;  y  acaba:  De  un 
Patriota  de  Lagos:  La  otra  empieza,  jEs  posible  Americanos!  y  acaba: 
sera  gratificado  con  quinientos  pesos.  El  objeto  de  ambas  es  el  mismo 
que  la  del  rebelde  Hidalgo ;  y  con  ella  se  han  quemado  publicamente  de 
orden  del  superior  Gobierno  por  mano  de  Berdugo  en  la  Plaza  ptiblica, 
y  se  han  prohibido  baxo  de  la  pena  de  alta  traicion  por  Bando  publicado 
por  el  Excelentisimo  Senor  Virey  de  este  Reyno,  que  ha  excitado 
nuestro  zelo  para  arrancarlas  con  las  censuras  correspondientes  de 
vuestras  manos.  No  necesitaban  en  realidad  de  especial  prohibicion 
por  estar  comprendidas  especificamente  en  nuestros  anteriores  Edictos 
particularmente  en  el  de  citacion  en  rebeldia  al  infame  Hidalgo,  publi- 
cado en  trece  de  Octubre  del  ano  pasado  como  lo  esta  igualmente  el 
Bando  que  public6  el  Licenciado  Don  Ignacio  Antonio  Rayon,  su 
fecha  en  Tlalpujagua  a"  24  de  Octubre  proximo,  en  que  convoca  a 
todo  Americano  a"  la  sedicion,  llamando  causa  santa,  justa,  y  religiosa 
esta  escandalosa,  atroz,  y  sanguinaria  rebelion,  proscribiendo  a  los 
Europeos,  confiscando  sus  bienes,  y  dando  nueva  forma  d  la  recau- 
dacion  de  impuestos.  En  dicho  Edicto  de  13  de  Octubre  declaramos 
incursos  en  la  pena  de  Excomunion  mayor,  de  quinientos  pesos,  y  en 
el  crimen  de  fautoria  sin  excepcion  a"  quantas  personas  aprueben  la 
sedicion  de  Hidalgo,  reciban  sus  Proclamas,  mantengan  su  trato,  y 
correspondencia,  y  le  presten  qualquiera  genero  de  ayuda,  6  favor, 
y  &  los  que  no  denuncien,  y  obliguen  £  denunciar,  a"  los  que  favorezcan 
sus  ideas  revolucionarias,  y  de  qualquier  modo  las  promuevan,  y  pro- 
paguen.  En  nuestro  Edicto  de  28  de  Septiembre  ultimo  prohibimos 
baxo  de  las  mismas  penas  qualquiera  proclama,  ya  fuese  del  intruso 
Rey  Jose",  6  ya  de  qualquiera  otro  Espanol,  6  Estrangero  que  inspirase 
desobediencia,  independencia,  y  trastorno  del  Gobierno,  renovando  la 
fuerza  de  la  regla  16  del  Indice  Expurgatorio,  y  de  nuestros  Edictos 
de  13  de  Marzo  de  1790,  27  de  Agosto  de  1808,  22  de  Abril,  y  16  de 
Junio  de  1810:  lo  que  se  os  hace  presente  por  tiltima  y  perentoria 
vez  para  quitaros  las  escusas,  de  que  por  nuevos  no  estais  obligados 
a"  la  denuncia,  corriendo  seme j  antes  papeles  incendiarios  impunemente 
de  mano  en  mano  con  peligro  de  la  Patria,  y  de  la  Religion  hasta  que 
algun  zeloso  catolico,  y  fiel  vasallo  los  denuncia. 

Y  para  la  mas  exacta  obserbancia,  y  cumplimiento  de  lo  contenido  en  el  Edicto 
General  de  F6,  en  los  anteriormente  citados,  y  de  los  respetables  encargos  del 
Gobierno:  Por  el  tenor  del  presente  os  exhortamos,  requenmos  y  mandamos  en 
virtud  de  Santa  Obediencia,  y  so  la  pena  de  Excomunion  mayor  latae  sentencice, 
y  pecuniaria  &  nuestro  arbitrio,  que  desde  el  dia,  que  este  nuestro  Edicto  fuere 
leido,  y  publicado  6  de  el  supieredes  de  qualquiera  manera,  hasta  seis  dias  siguien- 
tes  (los  quales  os  damos  por  tres  terminos,  y  el  ultimo  perentorio)  tranigais, 
exhibais,  y  presenteis  las  sobredichas  Proclamas,  y  Bando,  y  qualquiera  otro 


542 


APPENDIX 


Papel  sedicioso  impreso,  6  manuscrito,  ante  Nos,  6  ante  los  Comisarios  del  Santo 
Oficio  fuera  de  esta  Corte,  denunciando  &  los  que  los  tubieren,  y  ocultaren,  y  a 
las  personas,  que  propaguen  con  proposiciones  sediciosas,  y  seductivas  el  espiritu 
de  Independencia,  y  Sedicion.  En  testimonio  de  lo  qual  mandamos  dar,  y  dimos 
esta  nuestra  Carta  firmada  de  nuestros  nombres,  sellada  con  el  Sello  del  Santo 
Oficio,  y  refrendada  de  uno  de  los  Secretarios  del  secreto  de  61.  Dada  en  la 
Inquisicion  de  M6xico  a  veinte  y  seis  de  Enero  de  mil  ochocientos  once. 

Dr.  D.  Bernardo  de  Prado, 
y  Obejero. 


Lie.  D.  Isidoro  Sainz  de  Alfaro, 
y  Beaumont. 


Dr.  D.  Manuel  de  Flores. 


Nadie  le  quite,  pena  de  excomunion  mayor. 

Por  mandado  del  Santo  Oficio 

Dr.  D.  Jose  Antonio  Aguirrezabal, 
Secret  ario. 


APPENDIX  543 


XV. 

SENTENCE  OF  JOSE  MARIA  MORELOS  BY  THE  INQUISITION  OF  MEXICO, 
NOVEMBER  26,  1815. 

(Archive  de  Simancas,  Inquisition,  Sala  39,  Leg.  1473,  fol.  30). 

(See  p.  296). 

Dixeron  conformes  que  se  le  haga  auto  publico  de  fe",  en  la  sala  de 
este  tribunal  el  dia  de  mafiana  a*  las  ocho,  d  que  asistan  los  ministros  y 
cien  personas  de  las  principales  que  senalara  el  seiior  Inquisidor  decano. 
Que  se  declara  al  precitado  presbitero  Jose*  Maria  Morelos,  confitente 
diminuto  malicioso  y  pertinaz :  que  se  le  declara  herege  formal  negative, 
despreciador,  perturbador  y  perseguidor  de  la  gerarqufa  eclesiastica, 
atentador  y  profanador  de  los  santos  sacramentos.  Que  es  reo  de  L'esa 
Magestad  Divina  y  Humana,  Pontificia  y  Real  y  que  asista  al  auto  en 
forma  de  penitente  inter  misarum  solemnia,  con  sotana  corta,  sin  cuella 
ni  cenidor  y  con  vela  verde  en  su  mano  que  ofrecera  al  sacerdote,  con- 
cluida  la  misa,  como  tal  herege  y  fautor  de  hereges  desde  que  empezo 
la  insurrection,  y  como  a"  enemigo  cruel  del  Santo  Oficio  se  le  confiscan 
sus  bienes  con  aplicacion  a  la  Real  camara  y  fisco  de  S.  M.  en  los  termi- 
nos  que  declarara  el  Tribunal  y  aunque  merecedor  de  la  degradacion  y 
relajacion  por  los  delitos  cometidos  del  fuero  y  conocimiento  del  Santo 
Oficio,  sin  embargo  por  estar  pronto  d,  abjurar  sus  erases  y  inveterados 
errores,  se  le  condena,  en  el  remoto  6  inesperado  caso  de  que  se  le  per- 
done  la  vida  por  el  Excmo.  Sefior  Virrey,  Capitan  General  de  esta 
Nueva  Espana,  a"  destierro  perpetuo  de  ambas  Americas,  corte  de 
Madrid  y  sitios  reales,  y  a  reclusion  en  carcel  perpetua  en  uno  de  los 
Presidios  de  Africa,  a  disposicion  del  Excmo.  6  Ilustrisimo  Sefior  Inquis- 
idor General,  se  le  depone  de  todo  oficio  y  beneficio  eclesiastico  con 
inavilidad  e*  irregularidad  perpetua.  Que  d  sus  tres  hijos  aunque 
sacrileges  se  les  declara  incursos  en  las  penas  de  infamia  y  demds 
que  imponen  los  canones  y  leyes  d,  los  descendientes  de  hereges,  con 
arreglo  a  las  instrucciones  de  este  Santo  Oficio.  Que  abjure  de  formali 
y  sea  absuelto  de  las  excomuniones  y  censuras  en  que  ha  incurrido 
reservadas  al  Santo  Oficio.  Que  haga  una  confesion  general  y  sin 
omitir  el  Oficio  Divino,  rece  los  siete  Psalmos  Penitenciales  los  Viernes, 
y  los  Sabados  una  parte  del  Rosario  durante  su  vida.  Y  que  se  fige 
su  nombre,  patria,  religion  y  delitos  en  la  Santa  Iglesia  Catedral  de 
esta  corte.  Asi  lo  acordaron  mandaron  y  firmaron.  Doctor  Flores — 
Doctor  Monteagudo — Blaza — Campo — Madrid — D.  Casiano  de  Cha- 
varsi  Secretario. 


544  APPENDIX 

XVI. 

VICEROY  VILLAR'S  PETITION  FOR  ABSOLUTION. 

(Archive  nacional  de  Lima,  Protocolo  228,  Expte  52871). 
(See  p.  379). 

En  la  ciudad  de  los  Reyes  &  14  de  Octubre  de  1589  ante  el  Ynquisidor 
Lisenciado  Ant°  Gutierrez  de  Ulloa,  estando  en  su  audiencia  de  la 
maiiana  se  present6  y  leyo  esta  peticion. 

El  Virrey  de  este  Reyno  del  Peru,  D.  Fernando  de  Torres  y  Portugal 
Conde  del  Villar,  digo:  que  a  mi  noticia  es  venido  que  en  este  Santo 
Oficio  se  ha  declarado  por  V.  S*  que  yo  incurri  en  ciertas  Censuras  de 
Excomunion  por  haber  procedido  criminalmente  contra  el  Dr.  Diego  de 
Salinas  y  otras  causas,  y  aunque  a  lo  que  puedo  entender  he  tenido 
siempre  seguridad  y  quietud  de  mi  conciencia  de  no  haber  incurrido 
en  ellas  por  no  haber  sido  de  mi  intencion  en  ninguna  de  las  causas  que 
se  han  ofrecido  hacer  cosas  por  donde  yo  entendiese  caia  en  la  tal  excom- 
union,  creyendo  que  para  proceder  en  los  negocios  y  cosas  sucedidas 
me  competia  derecho  por  razon  de  mi  oficio  y  cargo  y  otras  considera- 
ciones.  Pero  entendido  ahora  que  por  V.  Sa  se  ha  declarado  haber 
incurrido  en  la  dicha  excomunion,  acudo  a  este  Santo  Oficio  como 
obediente  hijo  de  nuestra  Santa  Madre  Iglesia  para  que  V.  Sa  me  de 
la  absolucion,  la  cual  pido  y  suplico  se  me  conceda  por  aquella  via  y 
forma  que  hubiere  lugar  de  derecho  y  mas  y  mejor  convenga  a  la  seguri- 
dad de  mi  conciencia  que  es  justo  yo  tenga  en  todo  tiempo,  en  especial 
habiendome  de  embarcar  para  Espana  como  con  lisencia  y  por  mandado 
del  Rey  nuestro  Seiior  estoy  para  lo  hacer  con  mucha  brevedad. — El 
Virrey  Conde  del  Villar. 

En  la  Ciudad  de  los  Reyes  &  14  de  Octubre  de  1589  los  Inquisidores 
Dr.  Juan  Ruiz  de  Prado  y  Lisenciado  Antonio  Gutierrez  de  Ulloa  estando 
en  su  Audiencia  de  la  tarde,  habiendo  visto  esta  dicha  peticion  dijeron 
que  per  cuanto  por  su  parte  de  los  dichos  Ynquisidores  se  habia  adver- 
tido  diversas  veces,  asi  por  terceras  personas  como  por  escrito  &  su 
Sa  del  dicho  Sr  Virrey  Conde  del  Villar  que  por  las  cosas  que  habia 
hecho  contra  el  Santo  Oficio  y  sus  Ministros  habia  incurrido  en  las 
Gensuras  contenidas  en  el  motupropio  de  nuestro  muy  Santo  Padre 
Pio  quinto  y  estaba  excomulgado,  y  que  el  haber  incurrido  en  ellas  y 
en  otras  es  tan  claro  que  aunque  no  se  hubiera  advertido,  estaba  obli- 


1  I  give  the  reference  to  the  numbers  in  the  archives  prior  to  their  dispersion 
in  1881 


APPENDIX  545 

gado  a  lo  entender  asi,  porque  todos  entienden  que  incurren  en  ellas 
las  personas  que  ponen  impedimento  directo  6  indirecto  al  ejercicio  del 
Santo  Oficio  de  la  Ynquisicion  y  su  Libertad,  y  tratan  mal  con  obras 
6  palabras  de  los  Ynquisidores  u  otros  ministros  de  ella,  en  derogacion 
de  su  reputacion  y  autoridad,  sin  que  en  esto  escuse  ni  pueda  escusar 
la  intencion  por  buena  que  sea,  porque  clara  cosa  es  que  no  se  atiende 
para  incurrir  en  las  Gensuras  sino  solo  a  los  hechos  6  dichos  esteriores, 
porque  la  Yglesia  no  juzga  de  las  cosas  asi  ocultas,  y  habiendo  sido  las 
que  el  dicho  Sr  Visorrey  ha  hecho  tan  manifiestamente  en  perjuicio 
de  la  Ynquisicion  y  su  libertad  y  autoridad  en  grande  agravio  y  ofenza 
de  las  personas  del  Santo  Oficio,  como  se  ha  visto  en  muchos  casos,  que 
por  ser  tan  notorios  no  se  refieren,  las  cuales  cosas  antes  de  la  absolucion 
requieren  satisfaccion  condigna,  especialmente  lo  que  toca  al  notorio 
agravio  que  al  dicho  Dr  Dionicio  de  Salinas  Abogado  de  este  Santo 
Oficio  hizo  su  Senoria,  en  el  tormento  que  le  dio,  pidiendo  como  el 
dicho  Dr  Salinas  lo  tiene  pedido  asi  en  este  Santo  Oficio. — Atento  a 
lo  cual  los  dichos  Senores  Ynquisidores  amonestan  a  su  Senoria  del 
dicho  Sr  Yisorrey  que  para  que  la  absolucion  por  su  Senoria  pedida 
se  le  pueda  dar  y  conseguirse  el  fruto  de  ella,  ante  todas  cosas  satisfaga 
en  cuanto  en  si  fuere  al  dicho  Dr  Salinas  en  la  forma  que  mejor  se 
pudiere,  atendiendo  en  todo  a  la  autoridad  de  su  oficio,  a  la  cual  no  se 
pretende  derogar,  sino  hacerse  lo  que  los  dichos  Ynquisidores  estan 
obligados  de  derecho  por  aver  como  hay  parte  lesa  que  insta.  Porque 
a  lo  que  toca  a  la  injuria  y  ofensa  hecha  al  Santo  Oficio,  lo  remiten 
(segun  que  lo  tienen  remitido)  al  Yllmo  Sr  Cardenal  Ynquisidor  General 
y  Senores  del  Consejo  de  la  Santa  general  Ynquisicion,  con  todas  las 
demas  causas  a  esto  tocantes,  y  que  por  ser  cosa  liana  que  el  dicho  Sr 
Viso  Rey  estando  incurso  en  las  dichas  censuras  por  las  dichas  razones, 
y  constar  £  los  dichos  Ynquisidores  que  habiendo  sido  advertido  su 
Senoria  no  hacia  diligencia  alguna  para  salir  de  ellas,  y  que  estaba  a 
punto  de  embarcarse  para  Espana  (viage  tan  peligroso  como  se  sabe, 
especialmente  en  personas  de  edad)  de  nuevo  se  le  envio  a  advertir 
de  palabra;  y  como  todavia  no  hacia  diligencia  alguna,  estandose 
siempre  en  las  dichas  Censuras,  porque  no  fuese  ligado  en  ellas,  parecio 
a  los  dichos  Ynquisidores,  movidos  con  celo  de  caridad  para  obligar 
a  su  Senoria  a  la  seguridad  de  su  conciencia,  y  que  entendiese  el  peligro 
y  riesgo  de  ella,  declarar  como  declararon  (como  Ministros  del  derecho 
a  quien  competia  el  hacerlo)  el  haber  su  Senoria  incurrido  en  las  dichas 
Censuras;  y  acatando  el  respeto  que  se  debe  a  su  persona  y  oficio,  se 
hizo  la  dicha  declaracion  en  la  sala  de  la  Audiencia  del  Santo  Oficio 
sin  otros  testigos  mas  que  el  presente  Secretario,  y  de  ello  se  dio  noticia  a 
su  Senoria  para  el  dicho  efecto.  En  razon  de  lo  cual  como  parece  por 
la  dicha  peticion,  pide  su  Senoria  el  beneficio  de  la  absolucion  en  este 
Santo  Oficio,  la  cual  los  dichos  Senores  Ynquisidores  estan  prestos  de 
le  dar  en  la  forma  que  pueden  y  deben,  conforme  a  derecho,  haciendo 
35 


546  APPENDIX 

su  Senoria  del  Sr  Virrey  de  su  parte  lo  que  esta  obligado,  conforme  a  lo 
dicho,  sin  que  por  esto  pretendan  obligar  al  dicho  Sr  Viso  Rey  a  cum- 
plir  con  las  demas  solemnidades  que  el  derecho  requiere  en  seme j  antes 
casos,  atendiendo  a  la  calidad  de  su  persona  y  oficio  como  esta  dicho ; 
y  asi  lo  proveyeron  y  firmaron. — El  Dr  Juan  Ruiz  de  Prado. — El 
Lisenciado  Antonio  Gutierrez  de  Ulloa. — Antemi,  Geronimo  de  Eugui 
Secret  ario. 


INDEX. 


A  BUSES  of  Inq.  of  Sicily,  10,  13,  18, 
A         19,  21,  30,  37,  41,  518 
of  Sardinia,  117 
of  Mexico,  251,  254 
of  Peru,  335,  356,  375,  387,  435 
of  New  Granada,  473,  479,  487,  498 
Accounts,    statements    of,    refused    by 

Inq.  of  Mexico,  216 
by  Inq.  of  Peru,  342 
by  Inq.  of  New  Granada,  501 
Acereta,  Lorenza,  case  of,  461 
Acqui,  Bp.  of,  as  inqr.,  131 
Acquittal,  honors  rendered  in,  430,  437 
Adrian,  Card.,  endeavors  to  reform  the 

Inq.,  18 

Agliata,  Marino,  case  of,  34 
Aguirre,  Fermin  de,  case  of,  396 
Aguirre,  Francisco  de,  case  of,  322 
Aillon,  Nicolas  de,  a  mystic,  405 
Alaman,  Lucas,  prosecution  of,  274 
Alba,  Viceroy,  of  Sicily,  29,  33 
Alba,  Viceroy,  of  Naples,  95 
Albonesi,  Tullio,  his  report  as  to  Milan, 

127,  129 

Alburquerque,  Duke  of,  on  papal  juris- 
diction, 135 

Atcavala,  inqrs.  subjected  to,  215 
Aldegato,  Ambrosio,  inqr.  of  Mantua, 

133 
Alguazils,  number  of,  in  Mexico,  252, 267 

sale  of  office  of,  349 
Alguazil  mayor,  office  of,  refused,  188 
Alguazils,  royal,  arrest  of,  252 
Alcald,  Viceroy  of  Naples,  80 

claims  confiscations,  84 

his  instructions  to  Reggio,  89 

insists  on  exequatur,  90 
Alexander  VI,  his  bull  of  1493,  191 
Alienations  of  real  estate,  14 
Almendariz,  Bp.  of  Cuba,  475 
Almoguera,  Abp.,  his  Instructions,  445 
Alonso,  Bartolome",  case  of,  184 
Altolaguirre,  Felipe  de,  367 
Alva  de   Aliste,    Viceroy,  on  confisca- 
tions, 219 

warned  to  favor  Inq.,  374 

complains  of  Inq.,  381 
Alvarez  de  Arellano,  case  of,  229 


Alvarez,  Duarte,  case  of,  155 
Alvarez,  Sebastian,  burnt,  236 
Amat  y  Yunient,  Viceroy,  complains  of 

Inq.,  381 
America,     New     Christians     forbidden 

access  to,  193 

Amusqufbar,    Inqr.,    his   alliance    with 
Ilarduy,  352 

denounces  his  colleagues,   366,   410, 
435 

disputes  royal  ce"dula,  388 

quarrels  with  Abp.  Barroeta,  389 

his  treatment  of  Franpois  Moyen,  442, 
443 

is  sole  inqr.,  571 

Angelo  da  Cremona,  inqr.  of  Milan,  124 
Aniello,  Tommaso,  73 
Animali  parlanti,  gli,  suppressed,  472 
Antilles  under  Lima  tribunal,  455 

under  Cartagena  tribunal,  457 
Antioquia,  sorcery  in,  463 
Antona,  Franc.  Ant.,  case  of,  470 
Apostasy,  light  penalty  for,  439 
Appeals  only  to  Inq.-general,  21   . 

in  the  colonies,  203 
Appointment,  power  of,  in  Peru,  330 
Apulia,  Waldenses  of,  85,  524 
Archives  of  Canary  tribunal,  190 

of  Mexican  Tribunal,  288,  298 

of  Philippine  Tribunal,  317 

of  Lima  Tribunal,  320 
Arcimboldo,  Abp.,  his  Edict  of  Faith, 

123 
Arechederra,  Philippine  Commissioner, 

305,  306,  317 

Arianza,  Juan  de,  case  of,  392 
Armas,  Joseph  de,   fiscal  of  Canaries, 

150 
Arenaza,  visitador,  367 

his  trading  enterprise,  368,  369 

his  troubles,  369 

his  return  and  death,  371 

his  services  in  earthquake,  372 

on  the  trials  of  Quietists,  410 
Arms,  licences  to  bear,  13 

privilege  restricted,  32,  42 
Army,  foreigners  in,  271 
Arpide,  Ant,  de,  his  career,  375 
(547) 


548 


INDEX 


Arrests  in   Naples  require   royal  exe- 
quatur, 56 

power  of  commissioners,  302,  303 
Assassination  excepted  from  fuero,  30 
Assistenti  of  Inq.,  132 
Asti,  Bp.  of,  as  inqr.,  131 
Asylum,  right  of,  claimed,  11,  254,  386 
Atienza,  Gomez  de,  493 
Atrato,  navigation  of  river,  513 
Atto  di  fede,  in  Palermo,  1724,  30 

in  Naples,  1746,  104 
Audience-chamber  in  Lima,  447 
Audiencia,  quarrels  with  Inq.,  187,  269, 

384,  396 
Auto  de  fe,  Mexican,  of  1574,  205 

of  1646-1649,  229 

of  1659,  234 
of  1573  in  Lima,  328 

of  1639,  425,  430 

of  1694,  405 

of  1736,  366,  410,  435 
Aventrot,  Jan,  case  of,  150 
Ayacucho,  battle  of,  511 
Ayuda  de  costa  in  Peru,  343 
Az61ares,  Bp.  of  Canaries,  147,  162 


"DADAJOZ,  Concordia  of,  28 

-^     Badaran,  inqr.,  his  quarrel   with 

bp.,  185 

Banishment  as  punishment,  439 
Bank  of  Lima,  failure  of,  428 
Bankruptcies,  frauds  in,  41 
Banos,  Bp.  of  Santa  Marta,  492 
Banqueresme,  Jacob,  case  of,  170 
Baptism,  cost  of,  in  Sicily,  4 
Barco  de  Centinera,  his  excesses,  336 
Barnaba  Capograsso,  inqr.  of  Naples,  55, 

64 
Barroeta,  Abp.,  his  quarrels  with  Amus- 

qufbar,  389 

Beatas  revelanderas  in  Canaries,  162 
in  Mexico,  235 
in  Peru,  396 

Bedstead,  censorship  of,  266 
Bello,  Juan,  his  prosecution,  358 
Belorado,     Abp.,    appointed    inqr.    of 
Sicily,  6 

excommunicates  magistrates,  8 

appointed  inqr.  of  Naples,  54 
Benavente,  Francisco  de,  336 
Benavides,  Bp.  of  Cartagena,  491,  493 

he  goes  to  Home,  497 
Benedict  XIV  seeks  to  restore  the  Inq. 

in  Naples,  107 

Benevento,  Jews  of,  persecuted,  53 
Benjamin  of  Tudela  on  Neapolitan  Jews, 

49 

Bernal,  Alonso,  inqr.  of  Sicily,  9 
Bestiality,  244 
Betanzos,  Domingo  de,  inqr.,  196 


Bethencourt,  Jean  de,  conquers  Cana- 
ries, 139 

Bibles,  Spanish,  sent  to  colonies,  267 

Bigamy,  frequency  of,  206,  391 
powers  of  commissioner  in,  302 

Bishops,  their  quarrels  with  Inq.,  in 

Sicily,  35 
in  Sardinia,  117 
in  Mexico,  257 
in  Peru,  325 

in  New  Granada,  473,  491 
their  treatment  by  Inq.,  182 
appointment  of,  for  New  World,  192 
their  inquisitorial  powers,  196 
their  jurisdiction  over  Indians.  210 
their  rapacity,  514 

(See  also  Inquisition,  Episcopal). 

Blasphemy  in  Peru,  391 
in  New  Granada,  465 

Bohorques,  Bp.  of  Oaxarca,  257 

Bonelli,  Giacomo,  burnt,  80 

Bonol,  insurrection  in,  307 

Books,  heretical,  burnt  in  Naples,  70 
lists  of,  required  in  Mexico,  204 
prohibited,  sale  of,  265 
importation  of,  in  Peru,  444,  446 

Borbujo  y  Riba,  inqr.  of  Canaries,  189, 
190 

Borromeo,  Giulio  Cesare,  124 

Borromeo,  San  Carlo,  his  persecuting 

zeal,  124,  130,  132,  135,  532 
as  inqr.  of  Milan,  131 
his  mission  to  Mantua,  133 

Bovino,  Bp.  of,  and  Apulian  Waldenses, 
85 

Bowes,  Ellen,  case  of,  106 

Brasero  in  Mexico,  206 

Brazil,  influx  of  Portuguese  from,  421 

Brescia,  Bp.  of,  as  inqr.,  131 

Bribery  of  inqrs.,  20,  487 
of  Suprema,  367 

Brujas,  167,  463 

Brufion  de  Vertiz,  case  of,  239 

Bucchianico,  Marquis  of,  81,  82,  83 

Buenos  Ayres,  bishopric  erected,  337 
tribunal  proposed,  339,  341 
solicitation  in,  395 
influx  of  Portuguese,  421 

Bugueiro,  Abp.  of  Mexico,  257 

Buil,  Fray,  as  missionary,  191 

Burnings  in  Canaries,  154 

Bustamente,  Andr6s  de.  inqr.  of  Peru. 
327 


fUBEZAS,  Juan,  Bp.  of  Cuba,  458 
V     Caceres,  Felipe  de,  case  of,  324 
Calabria,  New  Christians  of,  52,  53 

persecution  of  Waldenses,  79 
Calderon,  inqr.,  his  peculations,  351 

his  property  seized,  353 


INDEX 


549 


Calderon,  inqr.,  his  scandals,  366 

his  arrest,  368 

his  release,  370 

end  of  his  trial,  372 

condemns  Quietists,  410 
Calificadores  in  Mexico,  264 

prosecuted  in  Peru,  393 
Calleja,    Viceroy,    suppresses    Mexican 
Inq.,  288 

invades  its  jurisdiction,  291 

executes  Morelos,  297 
Calvete,  Tristan,  inqr.  of  Sicily,  17,  18 
Camara,  Juan  de  la,  case  of,  259,  538 
Camera  reginale,  districts  of,  7,  8 
Camera  di  Santa  Chiara,  105 
Campagna,  Perrucio,  burnt,  24 
Campanella,  Tommaso,  case  of,  93 
Campeggio,  Camillo,  inqr.  of  Mantua, 

133 

Campos,  Ant.  de,  case  of,  392 
Canaries,  their  conquest,  139 

(See  Inquisition  of  Canaries). 
Candioti,  Teodoro,  case  of,  434 
Canete,  Viceroy,  complains  of  Inq.,  380 
Canonries  for  colonial  tribunals,   216, 
346,  501 

their  value,  217,  506 
Cantons,  Catholic,  relations  with  Milan. 

129 

Capassp,  Niccolo,  his  report,  102 
Caraccioli,  Viceroy,  on  suppression  of 

Inq.,  44 

Carafa,  Abp.,  persecutes  heretics,  87 
Card  tricks  suspect  of  sorcery,  166 
Cardenas,  Bp.  of  Asuncion,'  258 
Cardona,  Gabriel,  inqr.  of  Sardinia,  109, 

110,  111 
Cardona,  Ramon  de,  Viceroy  of  Naples, 

58,  59 

Cargoes,  seizure  of,  156,  169 
Carlos  II  expels  Inq.  from  Naples,  100 

on  colonial  subventions,  220 
Carlos  III  controls  the  Inq.  of  Sicily,  42 

recovers  Naples,  104 

suppresses  its  Inq.,  107 

limits  the  fuero,  269,  388 

on  pseudo-Catholic  recruits,  271 

limits  censorship,  445 

rebuilds  Inq.  of  Cartagena,  468 
Carmona,  Jamariz,  case  of,  248 
Carranza,  Angela,  case  of,  400 
Cartagena  selected  as  seat  of  tribunal, 
457 

bombarded  in  1741,  468 

Jews  allowed  in,  469 

intellectual  torpor,  470 

no  clock  there  in  1648,  485 

its  decline,  499 

expenditures  on,  503 

revolutionary  junta  in  1810,  506 

tribunal  expelled  in  1812,  507 


Cartagena,  siege  of  1815,  509 

recapture  by  revolutionists  in  1821, 
510 

its  commerce  in  1772,  513 

(See  Inq.  of  New  Granada). 
Carvajal,  Luis  de,  case  of,  208 
Casa  de  la  misericordia,  438 
Casannova,    Angelo,   kidnaps   Cellaria, 

134 

Castaldo,  Ant.,  on  tumult  of  1547,  77 
Castaneto,  Governor,  his  fate,  81 
Castel  Fuerte,  Viceroy,  270,  386 
Casti,  his  Animali  parlanti,  472 
Castillo,  Santiago  del,  case  of,  429 
Castro,  Ana  de,  case  of,  435 
Castro,  Ant.  de,  inqr.  of  Lima,  364 
Catalina  de  San  Mateo,  a  beata,  162 
Catholicism,  pretended,  risk  of,  175 
Cattle-brands,  censorship  of,  266 
Cavendish,  Thomas,  his  expedition,  415 
Ceballos  y  la  Cerda,  Governor  of  Carta- 
gena, 496 

his  humiliation,  498 
Cellaria,  Francisco,  burnt  in  Rome,  134 
Censorship  in  Naples,  84 

early,  in  Milan,  123 

in  Canaries,  176 

in  Mexico,  204,  264,  274 

in  Peru,  444 

by  the  State,  445 

in  New  Granada,  470,  510 
Cerezuela,  inqr.  of  Lima,  319,  327 

suspends  cases  in  Cuzco,  322 

on  Indians  and  foreigners,  332 
Ceruti,  canon,  tried  for  heresy,  133 
Cervantes,   Gaspar,   proposed  as  inqr. 

for  Milan,  125,  128 

Cervantes,  Juan  de,  his  chaplaincy,  151 
Cervantes,  Pascual  de,  inqr.  of  Mexico, 

201 
Cervera,  Melchor,  inqr.  of  Sicily,  14,  15, 

his  conscientious  bequest,  20,  523 
unable  to  hang  sanbenitos,  24 

Cevallos,  Gutierrez  de,  inqr.  of   Lima, 
365,  366 

Chapter  of  Canaries,  quarrels  with  Inq., 
183,  186,  187 

Charles  VIII   (France)   baptizes  Nea- 
politan Jews,  50 

Charles  V  (Emp.)  orders  Sicilian  Inq. 

restored,  16 

insists  on  the  fuero,  20,  22 
suspends  the  fuero,  22 
restores  the  fuero,  24 
refuses  redress  of  grievances,  26 
gives  Malta  to  Knights  of  St.  John,  45 
orders  Inq.  introduced  in  Naples,  70 
orders  Naples  to  submit,  76 
expels  Jews  from  Naples,  66 
his  edict  against  Lutherans,  69 


560 


INDEX 


Charles  V  (Emp.),  his  good-nature,  177 

appoints  friars  as  bishops,  193 

permits    New    Christians    to    go    to 
America,  194 

exempts  Indians  from  Inq.,  210 
Charles  V I  controls  Inq.  of  Sicily,  40 

limits  the/wero,  41 

orders  episcopal  Inq.,  102 

refuses  entrance  to  Roman  Inq.,  103 
Cheevers,  Sarah,  in  Maltese  Inq.,  47 
Chickens,  throat-cutting  of,  304 
Children,  exemption  from  confiscation, 
21 

of  heretics  seized,  106,  136 
China,  episcopal  Inq.  in,  317 
Chinchon,    Viceroy,    issues   licences   to 
leave  Peru,  333 

on  subdivision  of  district,  340 
Chitterlings,  privilege  of,  255 
Christ,  image  of,  in  audience-chamber, 

447 
Church,   its    development    in    Mexico, 

193 

Churches,  sanbenitos  in,  24,  188 
Cid,  Garcf,  receiver  of  Sicily,  12,  15 
Cid,  Nicholas,  case  of,  135 
Citations  to  Rome,  89 
Claims  against  sequestrations,  428 
Clavijo,  Lope,  Comr.  of  Santa  Fe,  454 
Claysen,  Caspar,  case  of,  154 
Clement  VII  restricts  travel  in  heretic 

lands,  137 
Clement    XII    appoints   Inq.-genl.    of 

Sicily,  43 

Clergy,   character  of,  in  colonies,  192, 
514,  515 

of  Peru  complain  of  inqrs.,  335,  356 
Clerics,  jurisdiction  over,  35 
Coca,  use  of,  in  sorcery,  391 
Colombia,  U.  S.  of,  abolish  Inq.,  510 
Colonial  system,  Spanish,  513 
Commerce  of  the  Colonies  in  hands  of 
Converses,  229,  425 

affected  by  persecution,  234,  428,  512 
Commissioner  of  Roman  Inq.  in  Naples, 

92,  94,  96,  98,  99,  100 
Commissioners,   quarrels  over  troubles 
caused  by,  in  Sicily,  35,  522 

troubles  caused  by,  in  Mexico,  248, 
252,  254 

their  limited  functions,  301 

their  duties  in  Peru,  334 

their  tyranny,  335,  339 

of  New  Granada,  454 
Commissions  on  confiscations,  19,  521 
Communications  in  prison,  427,  430 
Como,  heretical  infection  in,  122 
Competencias,  29 

suppressed  by  Carlos  III,  43,  269 

in  Canaries,  181 

in  Mexico,  252,  267 


Complaints  of  Palermo,  16 

of  Sicilian  Parliament,  13,  21,  22,  26 
of  Neapolitans,  95,  99,  102,  104,  107 
of  Viceroys,  255,  355,  379,  380 
of  Council  of  Indies,  220,  256,  314, 
345,  476,  478,  481,  484,  488,  503, 
512 

of  the  clergy  of  Peru,  335,  356 
of  governors  of  Cartagena,  473,  498 
of  the  Regular  Orders,  474 
of  the  city  of  Cartagena,  480 
of  the  Junta  de  Guerra,  484 
Complicidad  grande  of  Peru,  426 
Composition  of  Seville,  193 
Concealment  of  resources,  216,  345,  501 
Concordias,  Sicilian,  28,  31,  37 
seven  in  Sardinia,  119 
of  1553  extended  to  Indies,  197,  247, 

330 

of  1610,  for  Indies,  251 
of  1633,  218,  254,  267 
Confession,    deprivation   of,   for   solici- 
tation, 393,  394 

Confiscations  commence  in  Sicily,  7 
profits  of,  12 
of  contracts,  13,  21 
disorders  in,  19,  521 
division  of,  53,  134 
abolished  and  restored  in  Naples,  79, 

99 

of  Waldenses,  84 
as  practised  in  Naples,  85 
in  Sardinia,  112 
regulate  salaries,  114,  528 
in  Canaries,  156 

in  Mexico,  213,  216,  219,  223,  232 
in  Peru,  343,  347,  429 
in  New  Granada,  467,  501 
of  heretic  prisoners  of  war,  418 
entailed  by  reconciliation,  421 
influence  of,  512 
Conflicts  of  jurisdiction  in  Sicily,  25,  29, 

31,  34,  37 
in  Malta,  46 

in  Sardinia,  110,  117,  118,  119 
in  Milan,  125 
in  Canaries,  180 
in  Mexico,  245,  267 
in  Philippines,  308 
in  Peru,  381 
in  New  Granada,  473 
Constitution,  Mexican,  condemned,  291, 

294 

Consulta  de  fe,  in  colonies,  203 
ConsuUa  magna  on  Sicilian  Inq.,  38 
Contracts,  confiscation  of,  13,  21 
Conversos,  Jewish,  in  Sicily,  4 
forbidden  to  leave  Sicily,  7,  26 
expelled  from  Naples,  62,  64 
forbidden  to  leave  Canaries,  142 
not  allowed  in  the  Colonies,  193,  419 


INDEX 


551 


Converses  control   commerce    of    Col- 
onies, 229,  425 

Copernican  system  in  New  Granada,  471 
Coquimbo,  Dutch  captured  at,  418 
Corcuera,  Governor  of  Philippines,  309 
Cordero,  Antonio,  case  of,  426 
Cornelius,  William,  case  of,  205, 206,  207 
Corral,  Andre's,  case  of,  394 
Corro  Carrascal,  inqr.  of  Cartagena,  488, 

489 
Cortajar,  inqr.  of  Cartagena,  478,  479, 

486 

Cortes,  Hern.,  asks  for  friars,  192 
Cosenza,  burnings  at,  83 
Creditors,  claims  of,  allowed,  14,  21 
Crime,  immunity  for,  28 

abrogated,  388 

Crimes  excepted  from/wero,  31 
Crockery  subjected  to  censorship,  178 
Croix,  Marquis  de,  story  of,  270 
Crosses  prohibited  on  profane  objects, 

265 

Cruz,  Bart,  de  la,  case  of,  394 
Cruz,  Fran,  de  la,  case  of,  396 
Cruzada,  the  Santa,  its  jurisdiction,  385 
Cuadros,  Fran.  Manuel  de,  case  of,  241 
Cuba,  early  bps.  of,  195 

under  Cartagena  tribunal,  457 
Bp.  of,  on  commissioners,  249 
Cubelles,  Bp.  of  Malta,  his  Inq.,  45 
Cueva,  Claudio  de  la,  his  visitation,  150 
Curses  for  not  denouncing  heretics,  534 
Cuzco,  episcopal  Inq.  in,  321,  322 
earthquake  of  1784,  354 


DAGOHOY,     Francisco,    his     revolt, 
308 
Dealing  with  heretics  raises  suspicion, 

130,  137 

Debt,  arbitrary  collection  of,  255 
Debts,  Inq.  used  to  collect,  91,  362 
Decadence  of  Inq.  of  Sicily,  42 
of  Naples,  104 
of  Sardinia,  119 
of  Milan,  137 
of  Canaries,  188 
of  Mexico,  270 
of  Lima,  447 
of  Cartagena,  499 
Defence  disregarded,  230 
Delation,  training  in,  160 
Delays  in  trials,  237,  239,  410,  433,  443 

to  be  avoided,  519 
Delgado,  Rodriguez,  inqr.  of  Lima,  352, 

371 

Demon,  pact  with,  166 
Denunciations   in   Canaries,    142,    143, 

147,  160 

caused  by  Edict  of  Faith,  227 
duty  of,  202,  423 


Denunciations,  curses  for  neglecting,  534 
Deputati  of  Naples,  100,  101,  102,  103, 

104,  105,  107 

Derechos  del  Hombre  suppressed,  471 
Deserters,  military,  in  Philippines,  303 
Deza,  Abp.  of  Indies,  192 
Diaz,  Diego,  burnt,  235 
Discordia,  in  the  colonies,  203 
Discords,  intestine,  in  Cartagena,  485, 

488 

Divination  with  sticks,  473 
Domicile,  inviolability  of,  11,  254 
Dominicans,  slain  in  Mantua,  133 

missionaries  to  Indies,  192 

refute  Copernicus,  471 
Doria,  Andrea,  bombards  Naples,  75 
Dowries  not  to  be  confiscated,  14,  21 
Drake,  John,  in  Peru,  357,  415 
Dutch,  the,  their  attempt  on  Valdivia, 

418 

Duties,  evasion  of,  in  Sicily,  12,  517 
Duzzina,  Pietro,  inqr.  of  Malta,  46 


•EARTHQUAKE   of    1746,   in   Lima, 

353,  370 
Echarri,   Secretary  of  Cartagena,  490, 

499 

Edict  of  Faith  in  Sicily,  7 
in  Naples,  1695,  101 
in  Milan,  123 
in  Lombardy,  135 
in  Canaries,  142 
in  Mexico,  203,  204,  227,  290 
in  the  Philippines,  305 
in  Peru,  328,  331 
episcopal  in  Mexico,  211 
against  occult  arts,  391 
Edict  of  Grace  in  Sicily,  7 
Edon,  Adam,  case  of,  466 
Effigies,  burning  of,  144,  149,  152,  155 
Eguiluz,  Paula  de,  case  of,  464,  465 
Elections,  interference  with  forbidden, 

254 
Embezzlement  in  Lima  tribunal,  340, 

351 

in  Cartagena  tribunal,  487 
Embusteras  in  Mexico,  235 

in  Peru,  400 
Emigration  of  converses  forbidden  in 

Sicily,  7,  26 

Encarnacion,  Marfa  Josepha  de  la,  486 
England,  its  treaty  of  1604,  171 
English  factory  in  Sicily,  its  complaints, 

41 

prisoners  of  war  in  Peru,  357,  414 
Englishmen,  treatment  of,  in  Canaries, 

153,  167,  172 

subject  to  censorship,  177 
in  Mexican  Inq.,  205,  207 
changed  treatment  of,  44$ 


652 


INDEX 


Enmity,  gratification  of,  161 
Episcopal  jurisdiction  restored  in  Sicily, 

43 

Episcopal  Inq.     See  Inq.,  episcopal. 
Episcopate,  inqrs.  promoted  to,  201 
Erasmus  on  external  observance,  69 
Escalante,  inqr.  of  Cartagena,  500 
Esparza  de  Pantolosa,  case  of,  50 
Espinal,  Alonso  de,  a  missionary,  192 
Espontaneados,  immunity  for,  245 
Estrada  y  Escobedo,  inqr.,  230,  263 
Evans,  Katharine,  in  Maltese  Inq.,  47 
Evora,  Rodrigo  de,  case  of,  201 
Excommunication  of  judges,  32,  34,  37 

of  viceroys,  32,  377 

of  inqrs.,  185 

of  insurgents  en  masse,  280 

restricted  by  Charles  V,  42 

neglect  of,  is  heresy,  91 

commissioners  not  empowered,   301 
Exemptions  of  officials,  20,  22,  246 

from  taxation,  215 

from  military  service,  263 
Exequatur  required  for  arrests,  90,  94 

formalities  of,  91,  539 

Rome  refuses  to  ask  for  it,  95,  99 
Exile  as  punishment,  439 
Expenses  of  Lima  Inq.,  350 

of  Cartagena  Inq.,  503 
Expulsion  of  Jews  from  Sicily,  3 

from  Naples,  53,  62,  66 
Extinction  of  Inq.  of  Sicily,  43 

of  Naples,  106 

of  Sardinia,  119 

of  Milan,  137 

of  Canaries,  190 

of  Mexico,  298 

of  Peru,  450 

of  New  Granada,  510 
Extradition.     See  Exequatur. 


FABRIC  A  de  Scvilla,  225 

*       Faith,    propagation    of,    in    New 

World;  191 

Faith  not  to  be  kept  as  to  heresy,  52 
Faiardo,  governor  of  Philippines,  310 
Fallet,  Pierre,  case  of,  306 
False-witness  punished  in  Rome,  91 
Falsification  of  parish  registers,  434 
Familiars,  their  number  in  Sicily,  11, 13, 

28,  31 

in  Sardinia,  117 
in  Canaries,  146 
in  Mexico,  247,  536 
in  Peru,  330 
in  New  Granada,  468 
their  immunity,  27 
their  excepted  crimes,  31 
nobles  not  to  serve  as,  42 
regulations  in  Mexico,  247,  536 


Familiars,  illegal  protection  of,  251,  252 
their  military  service,  263 
deprived  of  fuero,  269,  388 
Farmers  of  revenue,  inqrs.  as,  251 
Fees  in  visitas  de  navios,  267 
Ferdinand  of  Aragon  appoints  Sicilian 

inqrs.,  1 
expels  Jews,  3 
reorganizes  Sicilian  Inq.,  5 
enforces  obedience  to  it,  8 
gift  to  Queen  Germaine,  12 
explosion  after  his  death,  14 
desires  Inq.  in  Naples,  50 
orders    payment     of    Pantolosa's 

bills,  51 
disregards    Gonsalvo's    pledge    to 

Naples,  52 

expels  Jews  from  Naples,  53 
commissions  a  papal  inqr.,  56 
attempts    to     introduce     Spanish 

Inq.,  57 

permits  papal  Inq.,  64 
founds  Inq.  of  Sardinia,  109 
supports  its  jurisdiction,  110 
his  grants  from  confiscations,  112 
his  kindliness,  113 
regulates  salaries  by  confiscations, 

114,  539 
Ferdinando  IV  suppresses  Sicilian  Inq., 

43 

allows  no  Inq.  in  Naples,  107 
Feria,  Viceroy,  his  struggle  with  Inq.,  34 
Fernando   VI   on   pseudo-Catholic   re- 
cruits, 271 
limits  the  fuero,  388 
sustains  Amusqufbar,  389 
Figueroa,  Bp.,  his  quarrel  with  Inq.,  183 
Figueroa,  Governor  of  Cartagena,  489 
Finances  of  Sicilian  Inq.,  9,  12,  19,  24, 

26,  27,  39 
of  Sardinian  Inq.,  109,  112,  114,  115, 

116 

of  Inq.  of  Canaries,  156 
of  Inq.  of  Mexico,  212,  225,  288 
of  Inq.  of  Peru,  342,  354 
of  Inq.  of  New  Granada,  460,  482, 487, 

500 

Fine  inflicted  on  Naples,  76 
Fines  of  officials,  28 
in  Sicily,  8,  10,  19 
in  Peru,  328,  329,  343 
in  Cartagena,  461,  482,  493,  496 
Finger-rings,  censorship  of,  266 
Fishing-boat,  selection  of,  by  Inq.,  184 
Fiscal  is  equal  of  inquisitor,  365 
Flemings,  prosecution  of,  in  Canaries, 

171 

Flores,  Juan  Gutierrez, inqr.  of  Lima,  364 
Flores,  Manuel  de,  inqr.  of  Mexico,  289 
publishes  Edict  of  Faith,  290 
tries  Jos6  Maria  Morelos,  291 


INDEX 


553 


Florida,  attempts  to  establish  Inq.,  457 
Fonseca,  Pedro  de,  his  office,  213 
Fonte,  Miguel,  his  assassination,  111 
Foreigners,  treatment  of,  in  Canaries, 
167 

in  Peru,  332 

in  army,  danger  from,  271 
Fos,  Pierre,  case  of,  413 
Fragata  de  la  Inquisition,  92 
Franciscan  missionaries  to  Indies,  191 
Francisco  de  San  Jose",  Fray,  his  sermons 

307 

Frauds  in  bankruptcies,  41 
Frederic  II,  his  forged  decree,  1 
Free-Masonry  in  Mexico,  274 
Frenchmen  in  Mexico,  their  influence, 

272 

Fuensaldafia,  Governor  of  Sinaloa,  249 
Fuero  of  Inq.  in  Sicily,  10 

suspended  and  restored,  22,  24 

grants  immunity  to  crime,  28,  30 

restricted  by  Charles  VI,  41 

abuses  of,  in  Naples,  100 

in  the  Colonies,  246 

abuses  in  Mexico,  248 
in  Peru,  334,  382,  386 

limited  by  Carlos  III,  269 

by  Fernando  VI,  388 
Funez,  Diego  Ortiz,  inqr.  of  Canaries, 

145,  147,  149,  156,  162,  177,  181 
Furniture,  censorship  of,  265 


f^ACHUPINES,  280 

^-*     Gage,  Thomas,  on  Indian  idolatry, 

211 
Gaitan,  Andre's  Juan,  inqr.  of  Lima,  363, 

364 
Galleys,  punishment  of,  431 

for  solicitation,  395 
Garcia  de  Arias,  burnt,  236 
Garcia,  Comr.  of  Cumana,  454 
Garfias,  Isabel  de,  her  convent,  151 
Garza,  Costanza,  case  of,  144 
Gasco,  Fray  Alonso,  case  of,  396,  398 
Caspar,  George,  his  burning,  153 
Geltruda,  burnt  in  1724,  40 
Germaine,  Queen,  gift  to,  12 
Gesuald,  burnt  for  Lutheranism,  45 
Ghislieri,  Michele.     See  Pius  V. 
Gianbattista    da    Cremona,    Inq.-genl. 

of  Milan,  123 

Giberti,  Bp.,  overrides  the  exequatur, 
99 

expelled  from  Naples,  100 
Girgenti,  Bp.  of,  his  quarrel  with  Inq., 

37 

Giron,  Governor  of  Cartagena,  475 
Girard,  Jacques,  case  of,  93 
Gomera,   departure  of  Columbus,   139 
Gomez,  Juan,  alumbrado,  235 


Gonsalvo  de  Cordova,   his  pledge  to 

Naples,  52 
Gonzaga,  Guillelmo,  Duke  of  Mantua, 

133 

Gozo,  inqr.,  appointed  for,  1 
Gran  Corte,  conflicts  with  Inq.,  29 
Granero,  Alonso,  inqr.  of  Mexico,  201 
Granvelle,  Card.,  Viceroy  of  Naples,  88 
Gregory  XIII  grants  bps.  jurisdiction 

over  Indians,  210 

Greek  Christians,  trials  of,  240,  434 
Grisons,  their  relations  with  Milan,  122, 
129 

their  territory  violated,  135 
Grosero,  inqr.,  complains  of  bps.,  36 
Guadalupe,  Our  Lady  of,  280 
Guancavelica,  mines  of,  356,  359 
Guerra  de  Latras,  inqr.  of  Cartagena, 

488,  489 

Guerro,  Abp.,  on  New  Granada,  456 
Guerrero,  Abp.  of  Philippines,  309 
Guigue,  Franpois,  case  of,  317 
Guirior,  Viceroy,  on  the  clergy,  514 
Gutierrez  de  la  Rosa,  Bp.,  his  quarrels, 

185 


TTABITELLO,  83 

•*•*•    Handkerchiefs,  censorship  of,  446 

Havana,  commissioner  of,  249 

confiscations  in,  501 
Hawkins,  Sir  John,  his  men,  205,  207 
Hawkins,  Richard,  his  expedition,  416 
Henriquez,  Camilo,  case  of,  446 
Henriquez,  Manuel,  case  of,  433 
Heresy,  prevalence  of,  in  Lombardy,  122 

of  Inaians,  subject  to  bps.,  210 

of  popular  sovereignty,  275 
Heretics,  dealings  with,  unlawful,  50 

their  children  seized,  106,  136 

relations  with  forbidden,  129, 130, 137 

kidnapping  them,  134,  136 

foreign,  in  Canaries,  167 
Hidalgo,  Miguel,  case  of,  276 

edicts  against  him,  279,  281,  539 
Hieronimo  da  Verona,  his  sermons,  15 
Higuera  y  Amarilla,  inqr.,  230,  263 
Hispanola,  bishoprics  in,  192 

case  of  Pedro  de  Leon,  195 
Hollanders,  cases  of,  in  Canaries,  167 
Holy  See,  effect  of  Spanish   Inq.  on, 

128 

Huerta,  Gaspar  de  la,  case  of,  398 
Hurtado,  Fray  Juan,  on  Indians,  209 


TBANEZ,    GASPAR,   inqr.   of  Lima, 

-1-     365,  366 

Idolatry  of  Indians,  211 

Ilarduy,  receiver  of  Lima,  351,  352,  367 

Ilarduy,  inqr.  of  Cartagena,  468 


554 


INDEX 


Uluminism  in  Mexico,  235,  240 

in  Philippines,  305 

in  Peru,  406 

Images,  sacred,  on  profane  objects,  265 
Immaculate  Conception  in  Philippines, 

307 

Immigration  of  Portuguese  in  Peru,  422 
Immunity  granted  byfuero,  28,  30,  245, 

249 

Impostors,  mystic,  235,  396 
Independence  of  colonial  tribunals,  203, 
331 

oath  of,  required,  507 
Index   Librorum   Prohibitorum  in  the 

colonies,  204 

Indians,  their  readiness  for  conversion, 
191 

their  idolatry,  211 

exempt  from  Inq.,  209,  332 
•    repartimientos  of,  215 

sorcery  among,  228 

judiciable  for  sorcery,  391 

offences  against,  247 

failure  of  missions,  458,  514,  515 
Indies,  New  Christians  forbidden  access 
to,  193,  419 

Concordia  of  1553  extended  to,  197, 
247,  330 

Concordias  of  1610  and  1633, 218,  251, 
254,  267 

Council  of,  its  complaints,  220,  255, 
314,  345,  476,  477,  480,  484,  488, 
503,  512 

inqrs.  of,  195 
Innocent  XII  defends  Inq.  of  Naples, 

100 
Inquisition  of  Canaries,  139 

founded  in  1505,  140 

dependent  on  Seville,  141 

activity  of  Inqr.  Ximenes,  142 

prosecution  of  slaves,  144,  148,  149, 
152,  159 

its  suspension,  145 

its  reorganization,  146 

its  building,  146,  157 

visitations,  149 

active  persecution,  152 

finances,  156 

Judaizers,  158 

trivial  denunciations,  160 

beatas  revelanderas,  162 

solicitation,  163 

sorcery,  165 

foreign  heretics,  167 

censorship,  176 

conflicts  of  jurisdiction,  180 

suppression,  189,  190 
Inquisition,   episcopal,  in   Naples,   64, 
66,  71,  78,  79,  84, 86, 92, 100, 102, 
103,  104,  107 
in  Sardinia,  117 


Inquisition,    episcopal,    in    Lombardy, 
131,  135 

in  the  Canaries,  140,  145 

in  Mexico,  195,  199,  210,  211,  280 

in  the  Philippines,  299 

in  China,  317 

in  Peru,  321,  325,  412 

in  New  Granada,  454,  510 
Inquisition  of  Malta,  44 
Inquisition  of  Mexico,  191 
exercised  by  bishops,  196 
established  in  1571,  200 
its  installation,  202 
its  organization,  204 
auto  of  1574,  205 

of  1596  and  1601,  207 
its  activity,  209 
Indians  exempt  from,  209 
finances,  212 

early  poverty,  213 

Indian  repartimientos,  215 

concealment  of  confiscations,  216 

grant  of  prebends,  217 

dispute  over  subvention,  217  219, 
223 

large  confiscations,  219 

its  sequestrations,  223 

its  wealth,  225,  288 
cases  in  1626,  226 
inactivity,  227,  240 
persecution  of  Judaizers,  229 
autos  of  1646-1649,  219,  230 

of  1659,  234 

solicitation,  241,  271,  272 
conflicts  of  jurisdiction,  245 
concordia  of  1610,  251 
competencias,  252 
concordia  of  1633,  254 
quarrels  with  bishops,  257 
visitation  of  Medina  Rico,  261 
military  service,  263 
censorship,  264 

influence  of  Bourbon  dynasty,  267 
decadence  in  18th  century,  270 

C"tical  activity,  272,  275 
public  auto  in  1795,  273 
subordination  to  State,  275 
case  of  Miguel  Hidalgo,  276 
suppression  in  1813,  288 
revived  in  1815,  290 
case  of  Jos6  Maria  Morelos,  291 
final  extinction,  297 
survival  of  fanaticism,  298 
Inquisition  of  Milan,  121 
its  early  difficulties,  122 
prevalence  of  heresy,  123 
can  Carlo  Borromeo  becomes  Abp., 

123 

Philip  II  proposes  Spanish  Inq.,  125 
popular  opposition,  126 
project  abandoned,  128,  529 


INDEX 


555 


Inquisition   of  Milan,  commerce   with 

Switzerland,  129,  530 
episcopal  Inq.,  131 
suppressed  by  Maria  Teresa,  137 
Inquisition  of  Naples,  49 

Gonsalvo's  pledge  regarding  it,  52 

disregarded  by  Ferdinand,  54 

papal  Inq.  active,  56,  64 

attempt  to  introduce  Spanish  Inq.,  57 

popular  opposition  successful,  58 

exemption  from  Inq.  claimed,  63 

refugees  from  Sicily,  63,  65 

papal  Inq.  accepted,  64 

its  inertness,  65 

Charles  V  orders  Inq.  introduced,  70 

censorship  introduced,  70,  84 

Inq.  attempted  indirectly,  71 

remonstrance  of  Piazze,  72 

popular  rising  and  slaughter,  73 

envoys  sent  to  Charles  V,  74 

unsuccessful  fighting,  75 

resistance  abandoned,  76 

Roman  Inq.  introduced,  78 

its  prisoners  sent  to  Rome,  79,  88 

persecution  of  Waldenses,  79 

mixture  of  jurisdictions,  86 

popular  hatred,  88 

exequatur  required,  90,  94,  527 

popular  spirit  broken,  92 

papal  commissioners  admitted,  92 

assume    inquisitorial    powers,    94, 
96,98 

refuse  to  ask  for  exequatur,  95 
Roman  Ina.  established,  96 

its  procedure,  97 
Inqr.  Piazza  expelled,  99 
Roman  Inq.  expelled,  100 
Edict  of  Faith  in  1695,  101 
Roman  Inq.  returns,  102 
episcopal  Inq.  developed,  103 
suppressed  by  Carlo  VII,  107 
Inquisition  of  New  Granada,  453 
under  commissioners,  454 
demand  for  tribunal,  455 
extent  of  its  district,  457 
endeavors  to  include  Florida,  458 
tribunal  founded  in  1610,  460 
its  royal  subvention,  460 
early  operations,  461 
sorcery  and  witchcraft,  462 
blasphemy,  465 
autos  of  1622  and  1626,  466 
sack  of  Cartagena  in  1697,  467 
decadence  in  18th  century,  468 
censorship,  470 

quarrels  with  the  authorities,  473,  484 
visitation  of  Martin  Real,  481 

of  Medina  Rico,  485 
quarrels  continue,  488 

intestine,  485,  488,  490 
degradation  of  tribunal,  489 


Inquisition  of  New  Granada,  quarrel 
with  Bp.  Benavides,  491 

arrogance  and  decadence,  498,  504 

poverty,  506,  509 

moves  to  Santa  Marta  in  1812,  507 

returns  to  Cartagena  in  1815,  509 

abolished  by  United  States  of  Colom- 
bia in  1821,  510 
Inquisition  of  Peru,  319 

episcopal  Inq.,  321,  325 

Inq.  established,  326 

auto  of  1573,  328 

organization,  329 

extent  of  district,  333 

commissioners,  334 

subdivision  proposed,  337 

finances,  342 

quarrels  over  subvention,  342,  344 
concealment  of  receipts,  342,  345, 

348 

increasing  income,  343 
suppression  of  canonries,  346 
gains  from  auto  of  1639,  347 

from  other  sources,  349 
revenue  and  expenses,  350 
mismanagement    and    peculation, 

351 
property  at  suppression,  354 

character  of  inqrs. — Cerezuela,  Ulloa, 

355 
Prado  sent  as  visitador,  357 

his  charges  against  Ulloa,  358 
Ulloa's  sentence,  360 

he  visits  the  district,  361 
Ordonez,  his  greed,  362 
Verdugo,  Gaitan,  Manozca,  363 
deplorable    condition  of   tribunal, 

364 

quarrels  of  inqrs.,  366 
visitation  of  Arenaza,  368 

traffic  in  offices,  372 

quarrels  with  authorities,  373 

conflicts  of  jurisdiction,  381 

Fernando  VI  limits  the  fuero,  388 

quarrels  with  Abp.  Barroeta,  389 

functions  in  matters  of  faith,  390 
bigamy,  blasphemy,  sorcery,  391 
propositions,  392 
solicitation,  393 
mystic  impostors,  396 
Quietism,  406 
auto  de  fe  of  1736,  410 
Protestantism,  412 
prisoners  of  war,  414 
Judaism,  419 

auto  de  fe  of  1639,  425,  435,  438 

punishments,  437 

censorship,  444 

decadence  and  suppression,  447 

re-establishment,  448 

extinction,  450 


556 


INDEX 


Inquisition     of     Peru,    personnel    and 

salaries,  451 
work  accomplished,  451 

Inquisition  of  Philippines,  299 
episcopal  Inq.,  299 
commissioner  sent  there,  300 

his  functions,  301 
inactivity,  304 
censorship,  306 
conflicts  of  jurisdiction,  308 
imprisonment  of  Governor  Salcedo, 

311 
destruction  of  records,  317 

Inquisition,  Roman,  organized,  70,  121 
burnings  in  Rome,  80,  88,  135 
introduced  in  Naples,  78 
sentences  Waldenses,  83 
its  prisoners  sent  to  Rome,  87,  88,  91 
its  arrests  require  exequatur,  89,  90 
used  to  collect  debts,  91 
punishes  false-witness,  91 
its  regular  service  of  vessels,  91 
commissioners  established  in  Naples, 

92 

assume  to  be  inqrs.,  94,  96,  98 
refuses  to  ask  for  exequatur,  95 
established  in  Naples,  96 
expelled  in  1692,  100 
publishes  Edict  of  Faith  in  1695,  101 
is  again  introduced,  102 
Charles  VI  rejects  it,  103 
objects  to  Spanish  Inq.,  125 
obstructs  trade  with  heretics,  131 

Inquisition  of  Sardinia,  109 
conflicts  of  jurisdiction,  110 
productive   confiscations,  112 
two  inqrs.  tried,  114 
impoverishment,  114,  115,  116 
Charles  V  stimulates  activity,  115 
its  inefficiency,  116 
multiplication  of  officials,  117 
disappears  under  House  of  Savoy,  119 

Inquisition  of  Sicily,  1 

its  finances,  5,  9,  12,  19,  24,  27 
reorganized  in  1500,  6 
a  house  provided,  7 
reorganized  in  1510,  9 
activity  in  1513,  12 
complaints  of  abuses,  13,  21,  22,  26 
reforms  attempted,  13,  517 
suspended  by  rising  in  1516,  15 
restored  in  1519 — its  activity,  17 
Card.  Adrian  tries  to  reform  it,  18 
Abp.  Manrique  also  tries,  19,  518 
fuero  of  officials  suspended,  22 
resistance  to  sanbenitos,  24 
continued  activity,  24,  26,  27 
contests  with  secular  authorities,  25, 

29,  31,  34,37 
number  of  familiars,  28 
claims  obedience  of  its  subjects,  33 


Inquisition    of    Sicily,    quarrels    with 
bishops,  35 

activity  in  17th  century,  39 

under  Savoy  and  Austria,  40 

under  Carlos  III,  42 

suppressed  in  1782,  43 

statistics,  44 

wants  evidence  from  Calabria,  52 

refugees  in  Naples,  63 

makes  arrests  in  Calabria,  89 
Inquisitors  acquire  bishoprics,  201 

of  Peru,  their  character,  355 

of  Cartagena,  473,  479,  485 
Insane,  punishment  of,  38, 235, 236, 238, 

239,  329,  397,  410,  420 
Insanity  procures  exemption,  392 

case  suspended  for,  432 
Installation  of  Mexican  Inq.,  202 

of  Peruvian,  328 
Instructions,  Sicilian,  13,  18,  518 

special,  for  colonies,  203 
Insurgents  excommunicated  en  masse, 
280 

their  documents  condemned,  291 
Inviolability  of  officials'  houses,  11,  254, 

386,  517 

Irazabal,  auditor,  his  knavery,  352 
Irregularities  of  procedure  in  Lima,  411, 

436,  437 
Irreverence,  cases  of,  in  Canaries,  161, 

168,  178 

Isabella  of  Castile  conquers  Canaries, 
139 

her  zeal  for  the  faith  in  the  Indies,  191 


JANSENISM  in  China,  318 
"      Jesuits,  drowning  of,  168 

persecute  Bp.  Palafox,  258 
their  expulsion  from  Mexico,  270 
their  precautions  against  solicita- 
tion, 303 

their  immunity,  305,  399 
their  rule  in  Bonol,  308 

in  Paraguay,  258 
persecution   of   Abp.    Corcuera, 

309 

incensed  against  Inq.,  367 
favor  visitor  Arenaza,  369 
resent  the  trial  of  Ulloa,  411 
their  superiority,  515 
Jew  held  for  ransom,  143 
Jewelry,  censorship  of,  265 
Jews  of  Sicily,  persecution  in  1474,  2 

expulsion  in  1492,  3 
number  of,  in  Naples,  49 
their  compulsory  oaptism,  50 
expulsion  from  Naples,  53,  62,  64,  66 
persecution  in  1571,  87 
allowed  in  Cartagena,  469 
Jimeno,  Sancho,  468 


INDEX 


557 


Joanna  II  suppresses  Jewish  usury,  49 
Juan  Bautista  de  Cardenas,  alumbrado, 

240 

Juan,  Jorje,  on  Peruvian  clergy,  514 
Juana  of  Naples,  her  bills  of  exchange, 

51 

Judrez,  Pedro,  case  of,  199 
Judaism  in  Mexico,  207 

evidences  of,  434 
Judaizers  in  Sicily,  12,  22,  24,  27 
in  Naples,  50,  64 
in  Canaries,  142,  144,  158 
in  the  New  World,  193 
in  Mexico,  196,  226,  227,  228,  230, 

235,  271 

one  relaxed  in  1792,  273 
in  Philippines,  304 
in  Peru,  327,  329,  337,  344,  419 
in  New  Granada,  455,  466,  469,  501 
Judges,  excommunication  of,  32,  34,  37, 

184,  187 

courtesy  enjoined  towards,  254 
Julius  II  persecutes  Jews  of  Benevento, 

53 
opposes  Spanish  Inq.  for  Naples,  57, 

61 

Julius  III,  his  bull  on  impeding  Inq.,  78 
abolishes  confiscation  in  Naples,  79, 

86 
Jurisdiction  over  clerics,  36 

secular,  over  heresy  in  Naples,  66 
temporal,  of  Inq.,  245 
profits  of,  27 
restricted,  41,  269,  388 
suspended  in  Sicily,  22,  24 
in  Mexico  in  18th  century,  268,  269 
Jurisdictions,    multiplied,   in    Spanish 
Colonies,  511 


T  ABOR,  enforced,  of  Indians,  215 
•"     La  Guardia,  Waldenses  of,  81, 82, 

83 

Lamport,  William,  case  of,  236 
Lanzarote,  bishopric  founded  in,  140 
Las  Casas,  his  inql.  jurisdiction,  197 

on  capacity  of  Indians,  211 
Las  Palmas  captured  by  Dutch,  146 
Lazaeta,  inqr.  of  Cartagena,  467,  499, 

500 

Leniency  for  solicitation,  164,  243,  393, 
395 

for  sorcery,  439,  463 

for  blasphemy,  465 
Leon  Colorado,  case  of,  169 
Leon,  Pedro  de,  case  of,  195 
Leon,  Sanchp  de  Herrera,  case  of,  160 
Leon  y  Saravia,  Governor  of  Philippines, 

316 

Leopoldo  da  S.  Pasquale,  case  of,  107 
Libra,  value  of,  6 


Licences  to  bear  arms,  13 

to  read  prohibited  books,  178 

to  visit  heretic  lands,  130,  136 

for  sailing,  254 

to  leave  Canaries,  142 

to  leave  Mexico,  204 

to  leave  Peru,  333,  427 
Luna,  Inq.  of,  its  records,  320 
council  of  1583,  321 

(See  Inquisition  of  Peru). 
Limpieza  required  in  Peru,  331 
Lizardi,  Ferndndez  de,  case  of,  273 
Llano  Valde"s,  Francisco  de,  478 
Loaisa,  Abp.,  holds  auto  de  fe,  321 
Lobaton,  Juan  and  Martin,  case  of,  382 
Loeb,  Isidor,  number  of  Sicilian  Jews,  3 
Lombardy,  its  relations  with  Switzer- 
land, 121,  129 

precautions  against  foreign  heretics, 

129,  530 

Lopez  de  Aponte,  case  of,  235 
L6pez,  Luis,  S.  J.,  case  of,  396,  399 
Los  Tres  Reyes,  case  of,  172 
Louisiana  Purchase,  censorship  in,  274 

Inq.  attempted  there,  459 
Louis  XII,  his  bargain  with  Ferdinand, 

52 

Loyola  y  Haro,  Juan  de,  case  of,  436 
Lugardi,  Enrico,  revives  Sicilian  Inq.,  1 
Lujan,  Felipe  de,  his  proposition,  392 
Lutheranism  persecuted  in  Sicily,  24 

in  Naples,  69 

dread  of,  in  Colonies,  200 


MALDONADO  DE  SILVA,  case  of, 
423 
Malta,  inqr.  appointed  for,  1 

Inq.  of,  44 

Malvicino,  Valerio,  persecutes  Walden- 
ses, 81,  82,  84 
Mancera,  Viceroy,  on  expenses  of  Inq., 

222 

complains  of  Inq.,  255 
speculates  on  the  Portuguese,  433 
Manozca,  Juan  de,  inqr.  of  Lima,  364 

of  Cartagena,  460 
his  injustice,  461 

objects  to  prosecuting  sorcery,  463 
complaints  of  him,  473 
transferred  to  Lima,  476 
is  Abp.  of  Mexico,  257 
Mafiozca,  Juan  Saenz  de,  230,  263 
Manrique,   Abp.,  his    Sicilian  Instruc- 
tions, 19,  518 

Manrique,  Francisco,  Comr.  of  Philip- 
pines, 300 

Manso,  Bp.  Alfonso,  as  inqr.,  195 
Manso,  Giacomo,  inqr.  of  Sicily,  2 
Mantua,  Inq.  enforced  there,  133 
Marcategui,  Ant.  de,  case  of,  385 


558 


INDEX 


Maria  Teresa  suppresses  Inq.  of  Milan, 

137 
Marignano,  Franciscan  Guardian  of,  his 

escape,  124 
Marin,   Sancho,  inqr.  of  Sardinia,  109 

transferred  to  Sicily,  5 
MarinaBiis  Siculus,  his  pension,  8 
Martin,    Diego,    Governor   of    Buenos 

Ayres,  421 

Martin  de  Valencia  as  inqr.,  196 
Matteo  da  Reggio,  inqr.  in  Naples,  49 
Mattos,  Fran.  Rodriguez,  case  of,  208 
Mazza,  Agostino,  case  of,  98 
Media  aftata,  225 
Medina,  J.  T.,  his  works,  320 
Medina  Rico,  his  visitation  in  Carta- 
gena, 485 

transferred  to  Mexico,  488 

his  Mexican  visitation,  230 

his  arbitrary  action,  255 

on  persecution  of  Palafox,  258 

tries  case  of  Juan  de  la  Camara,  261 
Melgarejo,  Luisa,  case  of,  400 
Melgarejo,  Rodrigo  Ortiz,  case  of,  394 
Membretes,  228 
Mendoza,  Bp.  of  Popayan,  473 
Mercader,  Benito,  visitor  of  Sicily,  19 
Mercantile  cases  exempted  from  fuero, 

41,43 

Merchants,  heretic,  residence  of,  136 
Messina  receives  the  Inq.,  17 
Mexico,  growth  of  the  Church,  193 

sanbenitos  in  cathedral,  196 

apprehension  of  Protestants,  200 

(See  Inq.  of  Mexico). 
Mier,  G6mez  de,  inqr.  of  Cartagena,  489, 

490,  491 

Mier  Noriega  y  Guerra,  case  of,  297 
Milan.     See  Inq.  of  Milan. 
Military  service  of    officials,  263,  357 
Mir6,  Estevan,  Governor  of  Louisiana, 

459 
Mission  from  Naples  to  Ferdinand,  60 

to  Charles  V,  74,  76 
Missionaries  to  West  Indies,  192 

character  of,  in  Colonies,  319 
Missions,  unsuccess  of,  514,  515 
Modena,  Bp.  of,  inqr.  in  Milan,  121 
Moles,  Antonio,  as  confiscator,  84 
Molinism  in  Peru,  400 
Moncada,  Hugo  de,  Viceroy  of  Sicily,  14 
Monge,  D.  Miguel,  his  book  on  Inq.,  41 
Monox,  Edward,  case  of,  171 
Montalto,  Waldenses  of,  81,  82 
Monterey,  Viceroy,  defends  the  exequa- 
tur, 95 
Monterey,    Viceroy,    warned   to   favor 

Inq.,  374 

Montesalto,  Duchess  of,  85 
Montesclaros,    Viceroy,    complains    of 

Inq.,  380 


Montoro,      Bp.,    appointed     inqr.    of 

Sicily,  6 

of  Naples,  57,  58 
Montufar,  Abp.,  as  inqr.,  197 

his  censorship,  264 
Moorish  slaves,  cases  of,  144,  145,  159 

forbidden  to  go  to  colonies,  194 
Morals,  censorship  of,  446,  471 
Morales,  Padre,  excites  revolt,  308 
Moreion,  Catalina,  356 
Morelos,  Jos6  Marfa,  case  of,  292 
Moreno  y  Escandon,  his  report,  513 
Moriscos  in  Canaries,  144,  145,  147,  160 
Mormile,  Cesare,  73,  74 
Moro  sailors,  their  pagan  rites,  305 
Mota,  David  de  la,  469 
Moya  de  Contreras,  inqr.  of  Mexico,  200, 

206 

Moyen,  Franfois,  case  of,  439 
Multiplicity  of  jurisdictions,  511 
Munoz,  Diego,  his  censorship,  266 
Murga,  Bp.  of  Canaries,  146,  184 
Murga,  Governor  of  Cartagena,  476 
Murgier,  Jean  Marie,  case  of,  272 
Muros,  Bp.  of  Canaries,  as  inqr.,  140 
Mussumefli,  Count,  case  of,  29 
Mutineers,  naval,  in  Vera  Cruz,  268 
Mutis,  Jos6  Celestino,  case  of,  471 
Mystic  impostors  in  Mexico,  235 
in  Peru,  396 


~W"APLES,  its  conquest  by  Ferdinand, 

its  municipal  organization,  54 

tumult  of  1547,  72 

English  girl  abducted  in  1746,  106 

(See  Inquisition  of  Naples). 
Nava,  Antonio,  case  of,  104 
Negro  slaves  in  Canaries,  148,  159 
New  Christians  banished  from  Naples, 

62,  64 

forbidden  to  leave  Canaries,  142 
not  allowed  in  the  Colonies,  193, 

419 
New    Granada,    the    earliest    Spanish 

settlement,  453 
description  of  its  people,  461 
revolution  of  1810,  506 
its  condition  in  1772,  513 

(See  Inquisition  of  New  Granada). 
New   Mexico,    Governor   of,   arrested, 

256 

Nicholas  V  sends  inqr.  to  Naples,  49 
Nobles  as  familiars,  28,  30,  32,  42 
Nuevo  Reino  de  Granada,  453 
Number  of  Sicilian  Jews,  3 
of  familiars  allowed,  13 
in  Sicily,  28,  31 
in  Sardinia,  117 
in  Canaries,  146 


INDEX 


559 


Number  of  familiars   in  Mexico,  247, 

536 

in  Peru,  330 
in  New  Granada,  468 


AATH  of  obedience  to  Inq.,  11,  202, 
v     534 

of  independence  in  New  Granada,  507 
Oaxaca,  Bp.  of,  penances  Indians,  211 
Obregon,  Diego  de,  receiver  of  Sicily,  6, 

9,  12 

Occult  arts,  Edict  of  Faith  against,  391 
Ochino,  Bernardino,  69,  70 
Officials,  crimes  of,  14 

engage  in  trade,  21 

their  exemptions,  22,  380 

their  fuero,  22,  24,  245 

hostility  towards  them,  23,  26 

their  excepted  crimes,  31,  247,  330 

their  abuses  in  Naples,  100 
in  the  Colonies,  251,  498 

multiplication  in  Sardinia,  117,  119 

royal  safeguard  for,  202 

their  immunities,  246 

subordinated  to  State,  275 

not  to  receive  commissions,  521 

not  to  receive  presents,  523 
Offices,  traffic  in,  372 
Olivares,  Viceroy,  rebukes  the  Inq.,  33 
Olivitos,  Angela,  case  of,  400 
Onza  of  Sicily,  5 

Opinions,  political,  prosecution  for,  273 
Orders,  Religious,  laxity  in,  244,  515 

complain  of  Manozca,  474 
Ord6nez,  Comr.,  arrests  governor,  256 
Ordonez  appointed  inqr.  of  Lima,  360 

secures  a  legacy,  344 

his  greed,  362 

made  Abp.  of  Santafe",  363 

on  solicitation,  394 
Organization  of  Mexican  Inq.,  204,  289 

of  Lima  Inq.,  350,  451 

of  city  of  Naples,  54 
Ortiz,  Juan,   inqr.  of  Cartagena,  479, 

482,  486,  487 

Ortiz,  Tomas,  as  inqr.,  196 
Osuna,  Viceroy,  his  obsequiousness,  93 
Ottine  of  Naples,  55 
Ovalle,  Manuel  de,  S.  J.,  407,  410 
Oviedo,  Rodrigo  de,  479, 484, 486,  487 
Ozaeta,  Pablo  de,  inqr.  of  Cartagena, 

499,  500 


pABLO  DE  SANTA  MARIA,  423 

Pact  with  demon,  166 
Padilla,  Jos6  de,  inqr.  of  Cartagena,  489, 

490,  491 

Padilla,  Luis  de,  inqr.  of  Canaries,  144 
Palacios,  Andre's,  57,  60,  63 


Palafox,  Bp.  Juan  de,  his  persecution, 
257 

his  Ejercicios  devotos  suppressed,  471 
Palermo,  rising  in  1511,  11 

complaints  of  Inq.,  13 

rising  in  1516,  15 

auto  de  fe  of  1724,  40 
Panama,  alguazil  in,  331 

under  Cartagena  tribunal,  457 
Pantelaria,  inqr.  appointed  for,  1 
Pantolosa  the  Neapolitan  banker,  50 
Panza,  commissioner,  82,  86 
Paolo  d'Arezzo,  mission  to  Philip  II,  86, 

525 

Paolo  Sarpi,  on  trade  with  heretics,  137 
Papal    Inq.    in   Naples   controlled    by 

viceroy,  56 

Paraguay,  Jesuits  in,  258 
Parliament  of  Naples  in  1536,  66 

Sicilian,  complaints  of,  13,  21,  22,  26 
Pascale,  Giovan  Luigi,  burnt,  80 
Pastry,  sacred  heads  in,  266 
Paternina,  Commissioner  of  Philippines, 

311 
Paul  III  organizes  Roman  Inq.,  70 

his  relations  with  Naples,  76 

stimulates  Inq.  of  Sardinia,  117 

stimulates  persecution  in  Milan,  121 

forbids    New    Christians    to    go    to 
America,  194 

on  capacity  of  Indians,  210 
Paul    IV    introduces    Roman    Inq.  in 
Naples,  78 

restores  confiscation,  79 

coerces  Abp.  of  Sassari,  117 

degrades  Bp.  of  Brescia,  122 

stimulates  persecution  in  Milan,  123 
Paul  V  intervenes  in  Sardinia,  118 
Pay-roll  of  Neapolitan  Inq.,  57 

of  Sardinian,  114 

of  Mexican,  289 

of  Peruvian,  350,  451 
Payta,  English  descent  on,  375 
Pearls,  confiscated,  sent  to  Ferdinand, 

112 
Peculation  in  Inq.  of  Sicily,  19,  521 

in  Inq.  of  Peru,  340,  351 

in  Inq.  of  Cartagena,  487 
Pedro  de  Cordova,  a  missionary,  192, 

195 

Pelayo,  Nofre,  case  of,  51 
Penitents,  labor  required  of,  19 

their  transportation,  234,  235 

pelting  of,  prohibited,  432,  438 
Pena,  Antonio  de  la,  inqr.  of  Sicily,  2 
Penaranda,  Viceroy,  expels  Piazza,  99 
Peralta,  inqr.  of  Mexico,  207,  208 
Peralta,  Governor,  his  arrest,  256 
Pereira  Castro,  inqr.  of  Cartagena,  483, 

485,  486,  487,  488 
Pereyns,  Simon,  case  of,  198 


560 


INDEX 


Pe"rez,  Manuel  Bautista,  case  of,  431 
Peru,  episcopal  inq.  in,  197,  321 
royal  rebuke  of  inqrs.,  251 
irreverent  use  of  crosses,  266 
its  condition  in  16th  century,  319 

(See  Inquisition  of  Peru). 
Pestilence,  atonement  for,  143 
Petronila  de  San  Esteban,  a  beata,  163 
Petronio,  Bp.,  calls  himself  inqr.,  94 
Peyote,  use  of,  in  Mexico,  228 
Philip  II  orders  officials  protected,  23 
restores  the  fuero,  25 
humiliates  Viceroy  Terranova,  25 
orders  the  Inq.  aided,  26 
rebukes  Viceroy  Alba,  29 
makes  concession  to  justice,  30 
his  assurance  to  Naples,  86,  525 
asks  aid  for  Sardinian  Inq.,  116 
proposes  Spanish  Inq.  for  Milan,  125 
abandons  the  project,  128,  529 
sustains  Inq.  of  Canaries,  180 
zeal  for  the  faith  in  the  New  World, 

191 
forbids    New    Christians    access    to 

colonies,  194 
regulates  familiars  in  colonies,  197, 

247,  536 

fears  Protestantism  in  Colonies,  200 
founds  Inq.  in  Mexico,  203 
exempts  Indians  from  Inq.,  210 
his  grant  to  Inq.  of  Mexico,  212 
suppresses  episcopal  Inq.  in  Philip- 
pines, 301 

founds  Inq.  of  Peru,  326 
royal  protection  for  officials,  374 
refuses  tribunal  to  New  Granada,  456 
Philip  III,  his  instructions  for  Sicily,  33 
his  circular  letter  to  viceroys,  35 
efforts  to  learn  receipts,  216,  344 
issues  Concordia  of  1610,  251 
regulates  competencias,  253 
excludes  Bibles  from  colonies,  267 
royal  protection  for  officials,  374 
his  subvention  for  Cartagena  tribu- 
nal, 460,  500 

Philip  IV  orders  the  via  ordinaria,  99 
enforces  the  exequatur,  95 
subjects  inqrs.  to  alcavala,  215 
claims  return  of  subvention,  220 
demands    accounts    from    tribunals, 

216,  221,  345,  348 
his  gratification  at  autos,  233,  240 
regulates  competencias,  253 
issues  Concordia  of  1633,  254 
on  Philippine  commissioners,  310 
proposes  subdivision  of  Peru,  338 
on  secret  prison  of  Cartagena,  480 
on  visitation  of  Martin  Real,  481,  484 
Philip  V  abandons  Naples,  102 
orders  foreigners  expelled,  176 
rebukes  Inq.  of  Canaries,  187 


Philip  V  represses  the  Lima  Inq.,  384 
Philippines,  canonries  in,  217 

solicitation  in,  243,  302 

(See  Inq.  of  Philippines). 
Phillips,  Miles,  his  account  of  auto  of 

1574,  205 
Piazza,  Bp.,  establishes  a  tribunal,  98 

is  expelled,  99 
Piazze  of  Naples,  54 
Pielago,  secretary,  as  office  broker,  372 
Pimienta,  Governor  of  Cartagena,  499 
Pinto,  Paz,  case  of,  466 
Piracy  in  Canaries,  168 
Pius  IV  opposes  Spanish  Inq.,  86 

agrees  to  it,  for  Milan,  125 
Pius  V  objects  to  exequatur,  90 

as  inqr.  of  Como,  122 

his  decree  as  to  Inq.,  132,  531 

proposes  Spanish  Inq.  for  Venice,  132 

his  quarrel  with  Mantua,  133 

his  advice  as  to  the  Indies,  199 
Pizarro,  Maria,  case  of,  396 
Placido  di  Sangro  sent  to  Charles  V,  74, 

76,77 

Plata,  Juan,  case  of,  242 
Poblete,  Jose"  Millan  de,  313,  316 
Pointis,  Baron  de,  captures  Cartagena, 

467 

Poisonings  in  Cartagena,  486 
Political  functions  of  Canary  tribunal, 

190 

of  Mexican  tribunal,  272,  275 
Ponte  y  Andrade,  inqr.  of  Lima,  365 
Popular  sovereignty  a  heresy,  275 
Portorubio,  Bp.  of  Malta,  as  inqr.,  46 
Portuguese  Judaizers,  229 

complaints  in  Peru  of,  337,  341,  421 

ordered  to  leave  Peru,  433 

prosecuted  in  New  Granada,  466 
Poverty  of  Mexican  Inq.,  213 
Prado  sent  as  visitador  to  Peru,  357 

on  commissioners,  335 

his  charges  against  Ulloa,  358 

Ulloa's  charges  against  him,  359 

his  proposed  reforms,  360 

prosecutes  viceroy,  376 
Pragmatic  sanction  of  1732,  42 
Pralboino,  Claudio,  escapes  burning,  123 
Prebends   for  colonial   tribunals,   216, 

347,  501,  503,  504,  508 
Precautions  against  heretics  in  Lom- 

bardy,  135,  530 
Precedence  in  competencias,  253,  267 

in  bull-fights,  254 
Pre-emption  forbidden,  251,  254 
Printing-office,  none  in  Cartagena,  470 
Prison,  secret,  in  Canaries,  157,  158 
confinement  in,  480 

penitential,  in  Mexico,  214 
Prisoners,  cost  of  maintenance,  353 

care  for  them,  519,  521 


INDEX 


561 


Prisoners,  English,  claimed  by  Inq.,  357 
of  war,  trials  of,  in  Peru,  414 
their  rights  respected,  418 
Privileges  of  officials  in  Sicily,  10 

in  the  colonies,  245 
Procedure  of  Roman  Inq.,  97 

of  episcopal  Inq.,  105 
Profits  of  jurisdiction,  28 
Prohibited  books,  strictness  as  to,  274 
given  to  Archbishop,  289 
in  Philippines,  306 
Propagandism,    Protestant,    dread    of, 


Property,  efforts  to  conceal,  427 
Propositions,  heretical,  392,  441,  455, 

470 

Protestantism,  dread  of,  200 
Protestants,  in  Canaries,  167,  175 

in  Mexico,  198,  205,  207,  208,  226 

in  Peru,  321,  325 

in  New  Granada,  466 
Punishment,  capricious,  in  Lima,  437 
Purchase  of  offices,  372 


AUAKERESSES  in  Maltese  Inq.,  47 
H!     Quarantine     against     heretics     in 

Lombardy,  530 
Quarrels  with  bishops,  35,  182,  257,  476, 

491 
of  inqrs.,  355,  359,  363,  366,  479,  485, 

488,  490 

with  authorities,  373,  473,  484,  488 
financial,  in  Mexico,  212,  217 
Quebrantamientos  de  escrituras  de  juego, 

349 

Queipo,  Bp.  of  Mechoacan,  275,  290 
Quemadero  in  Mexico,  206 
Queretaro,  censorship  in,  266 
Quevedo,  Juan,  Bp.  of  Cuba,  195 
Quicksilver,  distribution  of,  255 
Quietism  of  Juan  de  Valdes,  68 
Quietists  in  Sardinia,  119 

in  Peru,  406,  410 

Quinonss,  Dr.,  his  confiscation,  343 
Quiroga,   Inq.-genl.,  his   letter  to  Bp. 

Vera,  181 

Quiros,   Bernardo  de,   Inqr.  of  Carta- 
gena, 489,  490,  491 
Quito,  Bp.  Pefia  of,  his  legacy,  344 


•DANZANO,  Bp.,  inqr.  of  Sicily,  2 
•**'     Real,  Martin,  his  visitation,  348, 

481,  483 

Real  estate,  alienations  of,  14 
Rebeldia,  182 

Rebiba,  Scipione,  in  Naples,  78 
Recalde,  Fray  Joseph,  case  of,  449 
Receipts,   statements  of,  refused,  216, 
219,  345,  504 

36 


Receivership,  dangers  of ,  111,  114 
Reconciliation  entails  confiscation,  421 
Records  of  the  tribunals,  190,  288,  298, 

317,  320 

Recruits  pretending  Catholicism,  271 
Reforms  attempted  yi  Sicily,  13,  18,  518 

proposed,  in  Peru,  360* 
Refugees  from  Sicily  in  Naples,  64,  65 
Reggio,  persecution  in,  86 

arrests  by  Sicilian  Inq.,  89 
Registers,  parish,  falsified,  434 

imperfect,  514 
Relaxations  in  Canaries,  154 
Remittances  from  Mexico,  219,  221,  224, 

225 

Renegades  in  Canaries,  160 
Repartimientos  of  Indians,  215 
Requisitions  by  Inq.,  251,  252,  254 
Resistance  to  sanbenitos,  24 
Revolution,  French,  influence  of,  272 
Revolution  of  Mexico,  its  ferocity,  281 

of  New  Granada,  506 
Reyes,  Luisa  de  los,  a  beata,  304 
Ribagorza,  Viceroy,  controls  papal  Inq., 

56,  524 

Ribera,  Teodoro  de,  case  of,  392 
Riciullo,  Bp.,  acts  as  inqr.,  96 
Rio    de   Janeiro,    Portuguese  arrested, 

421 
Rising  of  1516  in  Palermo,  15 

of  1547,  in  Naples,  72 
Rivas,  Geronimo,  case  of,  375 
Roda,  Giacomo,  inqr.  of  Sicily,  2 
Rodriguez,  Juan,  his  complaint,  266 
Rodriguez,  Rafael  Gil,  case  of,  273 
Roelas,  Alonso  de  las,  case  of,  161 
Rojas,  Jos6  Ant.,  sentenced  for  liberal- 
ism, 273 
Rome,  citations  to,  89 

prisoners  sent  there,  79 

burnings  in,  80,  88,  135 
Romero,  the  sisters,  embusteras,  235,  239 
Romo,  Bartolo,  alcaide,  367 
Romualdo,  Fra,  burnt  in  1724,  40 


O AFEGUARD,  royal,  for  officials,  202 
^     Sagro  Monte  della  Pieta  in  Naples, 

67 

Sailors,  foreign,  prosecution  of,  169 
Sola  reflexa,  387 
Salaries  of  Sicilian  tribunal,  6,  9 

of  Sardinian  tribunal,  109 

regulated  by  confiscations,  114,  528 

for  Inq.  of  Naples,  57 

in  Mexico,  212,  289 

in  Peru,  350,  451 
Salas  y  Pedroso,  inqr.  of  Cartagena,  488, 

489 

Salar,  Bp.  of  Manila,  his  Inq.,  299 
Salazar,  Luis  Ruiz  de,  case  of,  152 


562 


INDEX 


Salcedo,   Governor  of  Philippines,   his 

imprisonment,  311 
Salcedo,  inqr.  of  Cartagena,  460,  476 
Salerno,  Prince  of,  sent  to  Charles  V,  74 
Saldana,  Fray  Juan  de,  case  of,  242 
Salice,  Hercole,  a  heretic,  129 
Salinas,  Dr.,  360,  376,  379 
Salinas,    Gregorio    de,    comr.    in   Vera 

Cruz,  268 

Sanbenitos,  opposition  to,  in  Sicily,  15, 
24,  523 

for  Waldehses,  83 

discarded  from  churches  in  Canaries, 
188 

burnt,  189 

in  Mexican  cathedral,  196,  226 
use  made  of  them,  289 

of  Morelos,  296 

of  prisoners  of  war,  417 
Sanchez,  Miguel,  case  of,  113 
Sanders,  John,  case  of,  145,  168 
San  Lorenzo,  Tribunale  de,  55 
San  Sisto,  Waldenses  of,  81,  82,  83 
Santa  Clara,  nuns  of ,  at  Cartagena,  491, 

493 

Santa  Cruz,  Domingo  de,  case  of,  110 
Santa  Marta,  Diego  de,  case  of,  166 
Santa  Marta,  see  of,  453 

bishop  of,  492,  493,  494 
Santangel,  Luis  de,  refuses  Pantolosa's 

bills,  51 

Santiago,  commissioner  of  Chile,  346 
Santo  Domingo,  subject  to  Lima,  333 
to  Cartagena,  457 

Jews  allowed  in,  469 
St.  Augustine,  attempts  to  found  Inq. 

there,  458 

St.  John,  Order  of,  in  Malta,  45 
Sardinia.     See  Inq.  of  Sardinia. 
Sartolo,  Bernardo,  S.  J.,  405 
Savoy,  Sicilian  Inq.  under,  40 

obtains  Sardinia,  119 
Scrutinium  Scripturarum,  423 
Scourging  in  Mexico,  206 

in  Peru,  431,  438 
Sebastian,  Inqr.,  attacked,  23 

his  activity,  26 
Secretaries  of  Suprema,  payments  to, 

350 
Secular    jurisdiction    over    heresy    in 

Naples,  56,  66,  524 
Sedelia,  Ant.  de,  inqr.  of  Louisiana,  459 
Seggi  of  Naples,  54 
Sentence  of  Waldenses,  83 

of  Morelos,  298 

of  Fran9ois  Moyen,  443 
Sentences  not  enforced,  20,  520 
Sequestrations  in  Mexico,  223 

in  Peru,  348,  429 

commerce  destroyed  by,  428 

not  applied  by  commissioners,  301 


Sequestrations  not  applicable  to  prison- 
ers of  war,  417 
Servants  of  officials,  their  privileges,  31, 

245,  474 
Sessa,  Duke  of,  Governor  of  Milan,  127, 

128,  129 
Seville,  composition  of,  193 

its  jurisdiction  over  Canaries,  141 
Sgalambro,  Dr.,  inqr.  of  Sicily,  6,  8 
Shaw,  Robert,  case  of,  413 
Sheep  given  to  a  Jew,  143 
Ships,  detention  of,  252,  254,  333 
Sickness,  efforts  to  convert  in,  175 
Sinaloa,  governor  of,  excommunicated, 

249 

Sixtus  IV  asks  Inq.  for  Sicily,  1 
Sixtus    V    places    a    commissioner    in 

Naples,  92 

Slavery,  escape  from,  is  apostasy,  149 
Slaves,  Christian,  sold  by  Inq.,  19,  520 

in  Canaries,  144,  148,  149,  152,  159 

of  officials,  their  immunity,  251,  474 

their  exemption  abrogated,   388 

false  witness  of,  437 

negro,  in  New  Granada,  462 
Snuff-boxes,  censorship  of,  178 
Sobranis,  Ana  de,  a  beata,  183 
Socaya,  inqr.  of  Cartagena,  483 
Solicitation  in  Canaries,  163 

in  Mexico,  227,  228,  241,  271 

in  Philippines,  302 

in  Peru,  344,  393 
Solis,  Jose,  case  of,  407,  410 
Soranzo  Bp.  of  Brescia,  case  of,  122 
Sorcery  in  Naples,  101 

in  Canaries,  147,  148,  165 

in  Mexico,  206,  228 

in  Peru,  391,  439 

in  New  Granada,  462 
Soto,  Juan  de,  case  of,  160 
Spinelli,  Abp.,  his  Inq.,  104 

forced  to  resign,  107 
Spinello,  lord  of  La  Guardia,  80,  85 
Stevenson,  W.  B.,  373,  447 
Stomeo,  Giantonio,  case  of,  94 
Atoning  penitents  prohibited,  432,  438 
Suarez  de  Figueroa,  inqr.  of  Cartagena, 

495,  498 

Subdivision  of  Peru  proposed,  337 
Subsidy,  Sicilian,  to  Charles  V,  22 
Subvention,  royal,  of  Mexican  tribunal, 
212,  216,  218,  220,  222 

of  Lima  tribunal,  342,  344,  347 

of  Cartagena  tribunal,  500,  501,  502 
Sueldo,  value  of,  6 
Superstitions  in  New  Granada,  462 
Superunda,  Viceroy  of  Peru,  370,  387 
Suppression  of  Sicilian  Inq.,  43 

of  Neapolitan,  107 

of  Sardinian,  119 

of  Milanese,  137 


INDEX 


563 


Suppression  of  Canary  Inq.,  189 
of  Mexican,  270,  288,  298 
of  Peruvian,  354,  447 
of  New  Granadan,  507,  510 
Suprema,  its  large  receipts  from  Mexico, 

219 
its  duplicity  and  concealment,  219, 

221,  223,  224,  348 
on  Salcedo's  arrest,  315 
relations  with  colonial  tribunals,  331 
urges  subdivision  of  Peru,  337 
payments  to  its  secretaries,  350 
contributions  to,  from  Cartagena,  502 

505 

its  demands  for  remittances,  513 
Swiss,  their  relations  with  Milan,  129 
Symbols,  sacred,  prohibited,  265 
Syndics,  Jesuit,  in  solicitation,  303 
Syracuse,  Bp.  of,  his  quarrel  with  Inq., 
36 


rriABALORO,  CARLO,  case  of,  38 
-1-     Tagal  book,  heresy  in,  307 
Tanner,  John,  case  of,  173 
Tanucci,  Regent  of  Naples,  107 
Tarragona,   Abp.    of,    his    bills  of   ex- 
change, 51 

Tattooing,  censorship  of,  266 
Taxation,  exemption  from,  in  Mexico, 

215 

Tello  de  Sandoval,  inqr.  of  Mexico,  197 
Tenerife,  foreigners  in,  172,  175 
Terracina,  Domenico,  72 
Terranova,  Duke  of,  case  of,  25 
Terror  aroused  by  Inq.,  98 
Tezcoco,  cacique  of,  burnt,  196 
Thimbles,  crosses  on,  erased,  266 
Toledo,  Pedro  de,  Viceroy  of  Naples,  66 

urges  introduction  of  Inq.,  70 

bombards  the  city,  73 

his  vindictive  triumph,  76 
Toledo,  Viceroy  of  Peru,  on  condition 

of  colony,  319 
gets  rid  of  Aguirre,  323 
controls  royal  subvention,  342 
curbs  the  Inq.,  374 

Toleration  proclaimed  in  Colombia,  510 
Tormentors,  448 

Toro,  Pedro  de,  case  of,  396,  398 
Torquemada  appoints  inqr.  for  Sicily,  2 
Torres,  Comr.  of  Popayan,  454 
Torture  administered  by  physician,  142 

severity  of,  in  Lima,  429 

implements  of,  447 
Trade  forbidden  to  officials,  251,  254 

with  heretics  creates  suspicion,  130, 
136,  137 

danger  of,  in  Canaries,  168 
Traffic  in  offices,  372 
Transportation  of  penitents,  234,  235 


Travel  in  heretic  lands,  licence  for,  130, 

136,  137 

Treaty  of  1604  with  England,  171 
Trent,  Council  of,  opposes  Spanish  Inq., 
127 

on  episcopal  power  over  heresy,  211 
Trevifio,  Tomas,  his  martyrdom,  233 
Treviso,  licences  to  travel  required,  136 
Tribaldos,  Bart.,  first  Canary  inqr.,  140 
Tucuman,  its  conquest  by  Aguirre,  322 

solicitation  in,  393,  394,  395 
Tuscany,  arrests  require  assent  of  ruler, 

137 
Tumult  of  1516  in  Palermo,  15 

of  1547  in  Naples,  72 


TTBAU,   PEDRO,  case  of,   353,   407, 
U     410 
Ulloa,  Ant.  Gut.,  inqr.  of  Peru,  355 

complaints  against  him,  356 

Prado's  charges,  358 

his  sentence,  360 

visits  his  district,  361 

his  dismissal  and  death,  362 

prosecutes  viceroy,  376,  544 
Ulloa,  Antonio  de,  on  Peruvian  clergy, 

514 
Ulloa,  Francisco  de,  S.  J.,  case  of,  406, 

410 

Ulloa,  Juan  Fran,  de,  case  of,  367 
Ullos,  Juan  de,  case  of,  393 
Unda,  Diego  de,  inqr.  of  Peru,  352 

his  property  sequestrated,  352 

his  confiscated  jewels,  354 

his  scandals,  366 

his  arrest,  368 

his  release  and  death,  370 

condemns  Quietists,  410 
Universities,  compulsory  degrees  of,  252 
University  of  Lima  favors  suppression, 

449 

Unnatural  crime,  244 
Urban  VII  suppresses  canonries  in  Peru, 

346 
Urban  VIII  defends  Fra  Petronio,  95 

grants  prebends  to  colonial  tribunals, 

216 
Uriarte,  Juan  de,  secretary,  479,  482, 

486,  487,  488 
Utrecht,  treaty  of,  40 
Uzstariz,  Commissioner,  his  zeal,  305 


yALERA,     FRANCISCO,    .inqr.     of 

Cartagena,  491 

his  quarrel  with  Bp.  Benavides,  492 
is  transferred  to  Lima,  495 
his  actions  condemned,  365,  498 
insists  on  royal  subvention,  503,  504 
as  inqr.  of  Lima,  364 


564 


INDEX 


Valera,    Francisco,    tries   Angela    Car- 
ranza,  400,  404 

his  jubilation,  365 
Valderrama,  Francisco  de,  356 
Vakils  la  Vandera,  269 
Valdes,  Juan  de,  his  influence,  67 

his  disciples  in  Reggio,  86 
Valdivia,  Dutch  attack  on,  418 

as  place  of  punishment,  438 
Valtelline,  foreign  priests  expelled,  136 

its  territory  violated,  135 
Vandenbosch,  Franz,  case  of,  170 
Vanegas,  Diego,  case  of,  361 
Van  Hoflaquen,  Georg,  case  of,  170 
Varas  of  alguazil,  sale  of,  224,  225,  349, 

501 

Vargas,  Ant.  de,  case  of  his  will,  387 
Vazquez,  Francisco,  case  of,  394 
Vega,  Viceroy,  relations  with  Inq.,  25 
Velazco,    Governor   of   Cartagena,    his 

complaints,  473 
Velazco,  Juan  Francisco,  case  of,  407, 

410 

Velazco,  Viceroy,  complains  of  Inq.,  380 
Velez,  Fray  Andres,  case  of,  399 
Velez,  inqr.  of  Cartagena,  477 

transferred  to  Mexico,  478 
Venadita,  Viceroy,  suppresses  Mexican 

Inq.,  298 

Vendeja,  inqr.  of  Cartagena,  499 
Venice,  its  regulation  of  Inq.,  132 

residence  of  foreign  heretics,  531 
Vera,  Bp.,  his  quarrel  with  Canary  Inq., 

181 

Vera  Cruz,  mutineer  sailors  in,  268 
Verdugo,  Bp.,  on  suppression  of  Inq., 

189 

Verdugo,  Francisco,  inqr.  of  Lima,  363 
Vessels,  service  of,  for  Roman  Inq.,  91 

seizure  of,  156,  169 
Via  ordinaria,  87,  90,  97,  99,  100,  102, 

106,  526 

Vicente,  Juan,  case  of,  466 
Vicente  de  Santa  Maria  as  inqr.,  196 
Viceroyalty  of  New  Granada,  453 
Viceroys  ordered  to  favor  Inq.,  35,  250, 
374 

excommunication  of,  32,  375 

not  to  be  excommunicated,  252 
Vico,  Marquis  of,  case  of,  90 
Vienna,  Sicilian  Ina.  subject  to,  40 
Viera  y  Clavijo,  his  history  of  Canaries, 

180 
Villadiego,  Inqr.  of  Cartagena,  482,  483, 

485,  486,  487 
Villar,  Viceroy,  on  clergy  of  Peru,  320 

banishes  Catalina  Morejon,  356 

his  complaints  of  tribunal,  357 

his  troubles  with  Inq.,  374 

is  excommunicated,  375 

is  prosecuted,  376 


Yillar,  his  submission,  378,  544 

his  appeal  to  Philip  II,  379 

hands  over  prisoners  of  war,  414 
Villareal,  Abp.  of  Mexico,  257 
Yillaroel,  Bp.  of  Chile,  346 
Villaroel,  Ant.  Hernandez,  case  of,  393 
Visitas  de  navios,  in  Canaries,  176,  179 

in  Mexico,  266 

in  Philippines,  304 
Visitations  of  Canaries,  148,  149 

of  Mexico,  261 

of  Peru,  357,  367 

of  Cartagena,  481,  485 

of  districts  of  Peru,  332 
Vitoria,  Elena  de,  case  of,  464,  465 
Voz  activa,  officials  deprived  of,  14 


WALDENSES  in  Calabria,  49 
eradicated,  79 

in  Apulia,  their  fate,  85,  524 
Wall-papers,  censorship  of,  446 
Watches  undergo  censorship,  471 
Wealth  of  Peruvian  clergy,  515 
White  horse,  parade  of,  430,  437 
Widows  of  officials,  their  privileges,  31, 

42 

Will  case,  quarrel  over,  387 
Wine,  exportation  of  from  Canaries,  156 
Witchcraft  in  Canaries,  167 

in  New  Granada,  464 
Witnesses'  names,  suppression  of,  26,  97 
Women,  scourging  of,  431,  438 

"VIMENES,  CARD.,  his  appointment 

-^-     of  colonial  inqrs.,  195 

Ximenes,  Martin,  inqr.  of  Canaries,  141, 

142,  180 
Xuquil,  Indians  of,  their  idolatry,  211 


yANEZ,  GONZALO,  case  of,  248 

Yepes,  Rodrigo  de,  case  of,  248 
Ynes  de  Tarifa,  case  of,  143 
Yucatan,  visitas  de  navios  in,  267 


7ALDUEGUI,      PEDRO,     inqr.     of 
&     Lima,  372 

Zapata,  Governor  of  Cartagena,  485 
Zarate,  Fray  Francisco  de,  case  of,  243 
Zarate,  Ortiz  de,  Inqr.  of  Cartagena,  494 
Zayas,   Bravo  de,   visitor  of  Canaries, 

148,  161 
Zuazo,  Alonso  de,  on   New  Christians, 

194 

Zubieta,  Pedro  de,  case  of,  395 
Zumarraga,  Bp.,  burns  cacique  of  Tez- 

coco,  196 

Zufifga,  Viceroy,  his  subservience,  94 
Zurita  on  Sicilian  finances,  24 


m 


